Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AnnexBlaster t1_jaobkkz wrote

Reply to comment by va_str in US public investment in critical research contributed to the success of mRNA Covid vaccines, and saved millions of lives by geoxol

How can companies improve current drugs or research new technologies if they dont make profit? How can the government afford to fund research in biomedical science if it doesnt get any profit from taxes?

This means that in a government only funded research world with no “profit”, the “profit” to conduct research will be taken from tax payers.

Literally at the square one again, the only benefit is less price gouging, but theres less freedom in research. And clinical trials still cost billions of dollars.

2

va_str t1_jaqd1qo wrote

Taxes aren't profit extraction and this idea that the profit motive is driving research is nonsense. Funding to conduct research is already taken from taxpayers.

5

AnnexBlaster t1_jaqddst wrote

If the government wants to accelerate research it has to tax more. Its also getting less taxes from biotech/pharm companies because they cant make profit.

In order to bridge this gap the government needs to make money from somewhere (taxes) or no research will be funded.

The US government cannot print money forever without raising taxes.

1

va_str t1_jaqfbo6 wrote

I work in cancer research in the UK, and ALL our money is coming from the government. Where there's a will and relevant priorities, there's a way. That's really the crucial part, because governments have plenty of money to spend. Where they spend it is the real question, not how to raise more.

That said, even just moving the extracted profit into taxes instead would yield a substantial improvement. People make money off of this. Stop that and move the money back into research.

2

watabadidea t1_jatzr04 wrote

>...this idea that the profit motive is driving research is nonsense.

Yeah, if the is one thing I know for certain, it is that big pharma hates making decision based on what stands to generate more profit.

1

va_str t1_jauwxj7 wrote

One of those decisions being risk-aversity and subsidizing most of their research, yes.

1

watabadidea t1_javevpd wrote

There are lots of ways to avoid risk, lots of different levels of risk aversion, and lots of potential government subsidies to apply for. How do companies decide on how best to avoid risk, what a proper level of risk aversion/risk acceptance is prudent, and what specific subsidies to target/apply for?

Those are really tough questions and the answer is a complete mystery. Of course, I do seem to recall an interview one time with a Big Pharma exec where he said "None of our decisions in these areas have anything to do with profit motivation. Lord knows we don't operate in a trillion dollar, for-profit industry because we want to make money."

So, at the very least, we know it's not that, right?

1

va_str t1_javhqo7 wrote

You're really making my point for me. There are indeed plenty of options, and the profit motive motivates choices towards greater profits, not the greater good.

1

200um t1_jaq3mf0 wrote

Wait, taken from the taxpayers? We already pay this profit as taxpayers (as consumers and taxpayers) and multiples above what is needed. Most of the base research is publicly paid for.

Pharmaceutical companies will develop products based on a specific conception of this market. This is a different set of priorities than the state. Moreover, they actively work to influence doctors, hospitals, and in the US have nearly captured all legislators. Selling and marketing account for more or equal to research and development.

Freedom of research is questionable. What if a disease/condition targets a segment of the population that is less profitable/politically important? Or if a competitor made an erectile-dysfunction drug then all others companies have to compete due to lucrative market rather than other needs.

3

SephithDarknesse t1_jaqhaq3 wrote

The problem you're ignoring here is that these companies are double dipping. They are funded by the government to research these new drugs AND are charging a huge amount for them. Pick one.

1