"Hawke" wrote in message
...

The federal government pays for between 50 and 70% of all research
and
development costs in the pharma industry.

I'd like to see a source for that number. Strange that the Feds
will
pay
all that money but not demand that they retain rights to the product
developed--the Feds don't usually work that way.

They don't retain the rights. It's a backhanded way to finance
university
medical research; they cut off most federal money, so now the
universities
get to keep the licensing fees.

However, as I mentioned, the R&D that Hawke is talking about is
*basic*
research, and only a small fraction of the total research costs needed
to
get a drug ready for medical use. Most of it -- especially the very
expensive clinical trials -- are paid by the pharma industry.


So there's your answer. It's
paying for most of the research for new drugs right now and that
will
continue in the foreseeable future. So there you go. By the way, at
least half of the money spent by pharma goes to advertising not
R&D.

So what?

The "half" figure is not accurate, either. It's less than 1/3.

This is a controversial subject and the only way to get a realistic
view
of
it is to really dig deep into the facts. The advocates on both sides
have
a
very easy time of muddying the waters because the system is very
complex.

--
Ed Huntress


Like I said, I'm getting those stats from Ha-Joon Chang, the well noted
economist (Google him if you like). In his book he goes into this.
Since
he's an economist and has written a book and mentions this specifically
I
think his statistics are probably accurate. He has great credentials. A
Cambridge educated economics professor, with a mentor like Joe
Steglitz,
writing on this I think is a pretty reliable source. Of course, you can
disagree with him but I'd like to see the credentials of who you do
believe.

Hawke

Well, I could quote the figures that he cites, and show you their
weaknesses.

But what you quote is not, I think, what Chang says. Here's what I was
able
to find in his writing:

"A lot of research is conducted by non-profit-seeking organizations --
even
in the US. For example, in the year 2000, only 43% of US drugs research
funding came from the pharmaceutical industry itself. 29% came from the
US
government and the remaining 28% from private charities and
universities."

He cites a source that I can't identify (I was searching on Amazon's
previews) but the numbers sound familiar. I think they come from pharma
itself. What Chang doesn't note, however, is that the part that comes
from
universities is paid for, after the government NIH grants are accounted
for,
by licensing fees to Big Pharma. In other words, pharma pays more than
half
of the total, and a couple of times what government is paying.

That's not to absolve pharma of the way it operates, but the picture is a
lot more complicated than these few figures suggest. Their entire
business
model is under threat right now. Coming up with new "small-molecule"
drugs
has gotten to be extremely tough. And the biotech industry, which has
lost
money, as a whole, every year since it came into existence, is not a
promising replacement. It's a good way to go broke.

The industry is going through a crisis and it will be shaken up. The
question is who will wind up paying for all of the research. In the end,
of
course, it's you and me, any way you look at it. But we'd make out a lot
better if we were Canadian or French.

--
Ed Huntress


It would be nice to speak to Mr. Chang personally and have him explain in
more detail about the statistics he's citing in his book. Unfortunately, I
don't think I'm going to be able to get through to him any time soon.

He didn't do the research for that data. He cites another source for it. I
think it's on page 125 or 126. If you have the book, take a look and see
where he got the data.

Then
there's the problem of understanding him. I saw him at a Q&A on Book TV
and
his Korean accent was so thick I could hardly understand him. I'd like to
hear him and Arnold (Terminator) having a conversation, that would be
something.

That sounds like my chemistry teacher in college. That's why I don't know
squat about chemistry. g


We have three good choices for quality health care, four actually. Being
French or Canadian, being filthy rich, or being a member of congress. God
Damn it!, I don't qualify for any of them. Wouldn't you know it. Being a
member of the unwashed masses sucks.

Hawke

It's not going to get much better for a long time. Hope for catastrophic
care aided by the government, which probably will cover nearly everyone, and
fairly large chunks of ordinary care paid out of your own pocket. I expect
some kind of price controls on drugs within five years. The way their
economics are going, they'll try to *raise* prices on a continuing basis,
and every other country but the US will resist. That means we'll pay all of
it until we finally get down to clamping a lid on them.

Or don't get sick. Or shoot yourself when you do. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress