This is such a fucked up incentive structure. Literally having the capacity to save lives but not doing it because otherwise people will pull out their money because Roblox is has a better ROI.
Break up the pharma companies and let them only be at-cost (!) manufacturers, move all R&D off to universities, and cooperate with other countries in said R&D efforts.
For many politicians that would be seen as a "courageous decision" (hat-tip: Sir Humphrey Appleby)
> and let them only be at-cost (!) manufacturers
Won't it be hard to find investors if you do that?
> move all R&D off to universities
I think the "D" in "R&D" might be the problem in this approach. Universities are great at many things, including research, but based on my experiences (science PhD two decades ago in a research group which worked on anti-infectives) the scientists there aren't necessarily very good - or even actually interested - in development as such. We partnered fairly closely with $bigPharma at the time, and they funded a fair chunk of our work.
> Won't it be hard to find investors if you do that?
Better that than paying negative interest for German 20 year bonds, if you ask me.
> Universities are great at many things, including research, but based on my experiences (science PhD two decades ago in a research group which worked on anti-infectives) the scientists there aren't necessarily very good - or even actually interested - in development as such. We partnered fairly closely with $bigPharma at the time, and they funded a fair chunk of our work.
Agreed, universities have historically not been involved into the development part. But that is not a given dogma that can't be changed - the government could fund the establishment of development departments.
Alternatively, international governments could establish cooperative efforts to develop pharmaceutical compounds. Rare diseases and the decline of available reserve antibiotics are a global problem affecting every country on Earth just the same.
Research = determining a candidate compound, e.g. a new antibiotic, (e.g. by taking and tweaking an existing compound, by basing off of the actual viral/bacterial genetic code such as with the Biontech/Moderna CoV vaccines or by isolating a compound found in a plant, fungus or other natural agent which has been determined to have the effect you want), and initial checking against cell cultures and/or lab animals for effectivity.
Development = taking a lot of candidate compounds and evaluating them in the classic three-stage procedure - phase 1: determine how the compound is processed in actual human bodies to check if it is actually safe to ingest and what side effects can already be observed (n ~ 20-80), phase 2: determine effective dosage (n ~ 100-500), phase 3: check effectivity in a double-blind trial (n ~ 1k-10k), as well as the fourth phase (after-license monitoring) [1][2].
The more a compound progresses, the more expensive the trials get to conduct, not just because the participants usually get some compensation for their risk, but also because all the data has to be tracked and processed. And a lot of candidate compounds fail somewhere along the path (either because they are ineffective or because the side effects are too severe), which makes the money invested effectively wasted (from a capitalist point of view, not from a scientific!).
> Development = taking a lot of candidate compounds
At least one $bigPharma defines "research" as being everything up to and including the first proof of concept in a human [Phase I] trial. After that would be "development".
My grandmother had rheumatoid arthritis, and it made her life utterly miserable for her last 10 years. Recently, Enbrel was developed by a biotech for profit company, it is the first effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.
No university or government came up with it. A for profit company did.
You don't have to give up all of it. The total budget of US is larger than the next 6 countries combined. India, which is actually surrounded by hostile neighbors, one of which is china manages to defend itself with a tenth of the budget. My guy you are giving military money they didn't even ask for in this year's budget. Please stop repeating this line. American budget it not to stop China or Russia, its to assert their own will on the world.
I don't know why you are talking about china while the point I was making was about India defending itself against china. Also indian % of GDP for military budget is 2.8 while for US its 3.75. US has no neighboring countries actively attacking it, India does.
edit: BTW, is there any actual proof that this whole military budget dissuades Russia and China in any way?
(Full disclosure: close family member works at $bigPharma)
I don't think it's about finding treatments you can "sell to millions", it's that in pharma, like in pretty much every other business, it's about ROI.
You definitely don't need millions of patients, but you do need to cover the R&D costs _and_ have enough left over to keep the shareholders happy.