SmokeyTA wrote:There is a reason why The Wellcome foundation does the research it does, and makes the discoveries it does, and Glaxosmithkline make cold remedies and Horlicks, and has to pay out billions of pounds in fines for fraud, kickbacks, and hides research. Teva pharmacuticals are one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world, their entire company pretty much just makes cheap pills other people have discovered.

When Jonas Salk found remedies that didnt work, he told the world. When Eli Lilly found remedies that didnt work, they just pretended they did and sold them anyway. After all, their sugar pills were flavoured

I don’t think really you can look at ‘transport’ as a product of private enterprise, like there wasn’t huge amounts of state research in to flight, like the biggest ship and boat builders weren’t Navys. Like universities throughout the world don’t do huge amounts of research in to aerodynamics. like it didnt need government backing with huge levels of road building to cover for the motorcars failings. like it isnt government standards that have driven improvement.

Almost all, the vast, vast, vast majority of research which leads to major discoveries which change the way we see, use and look at the world comes from the state and academia. This will always be the case. Academia looks for the answer. Capitalism looks for the money.

Sal Paradise wrote:You seem to think that all research of any note is conducted b academia - on that point we must agree to differ. The capitalists fund and engage in huge research projects. On transport you seem to discount all the work undertaken by the major car manufacturers, Rolls Royce - who have the most advanced jet engines around, I don't see many governments in the west building or designing ships, same goes for planes - I didn't realise Boeing or Northrop were government owned? .

There is a huge difference in finding something - discovering a way of turning that into a product that can benefit society as a whole is a different matter. Without the capitalist that simple would not happen.

Sal Paradise wrote:The capitalists fund and engage in huge research projects.

BrisbaneRhino wrote:Smokey - that's a tad OTT about big pharma.

The argument for big pharma has always been about their ability to fund speculative development. This is hugely expensive, especially when you consider we're not just talking about a few drugs, or just coming up with an idea but going through complex and expensive development and testing through to human trials and large-scale production for many drugs at the same time.

The current model is based on the funding of the above being in turn protected by the ability to earn abnormal profits from developed products for a period via patent protection.

I'm not arguing that the current model isn't flawed - it is. Genuine groundbreaking research nearly always comes from outside of big corporates, partly because they focus a lot of effort on developing new versions of existing drugs, or new drugs to treat the same disease. Corporates will also focus on diseases where the potential payoffs from a cure promise to be significant - i.e. they'll focus far more time on common ailments than uncommon ones.

But like many things, you can't "fix" the system that exists by tampering with just part of it - e.g. remove patent protection entirely and there's zero incentive for anyone to commercially develop any new drug. The problem then becomes who funds the research and how (and a lot of academics in R&D are directly or indirectly supported in part by big pharma).

SmokeyTA wrote:id agree with most of that. I wouldn’t simply remove patent protection but there needs to be a fundamental restructure of the relationship between the state, the public, academia and Big Pharma for numerous reasons, some which you mention, other such as the lies, lies of omission, and general bending of the truth which has become commonplace in medicine because there can be quite a big discrepancy between what is good for the patient and what is good for the drug company. Not to mention the uncomfortable relationship we should all see between doctors and Big Pharma and marketing and Big Pharma. Im also not keen on the duplication of research being done by competing big pharma companies. That seems 'inefficient' when it could be done more collaboratively in an academic setting.

As I said earlier, there is a place for drug companies, but for me the relationship should always be the Jonas Salk creating the thing, where it can be done through academia, where it can be peer reviewed, where all information is made public, where the aim is the truth and the answer, not the money, and the Eli Lilly manufacturing the thing.

cod'ead wrote:The other problem with big pharma is they are less inclined to find cures for illnesses or conditions, preferring instead to find treatments. There's no real money in cures

Richie wrote:If bigpharma1 invents a treatment that doesn't cure, and bigpharma2 invents a treatment that provides a permanent cure, who gets the business?

SmokeyTA wrote:Whoever pays the biggest kickback to the state/doctor?

Richie wrote:You can never trust the state. The one business with the most scope to create and abuse a monopoly.

SmokeyTA wrote:Never trust big business. It exists solely and purely and unequivocally to take your money.

I have to ask who would you trust more to prescribe the best drug for you, to you. Your NHS GP, or your friendly local Glaxosmithkline sales rep?