Re:The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s...
by zebrafish on Wednesday March 22, 2017 @10:44AM
(#13931322)
I'm definitely not in favor of granting more than a temporary monopoly to recoup losses and provide profit incentives.
I just don't believe that the government should be in the business of drug research. If they fund all of it, they get to decide which drugs will be researched. Let's assume that these decisions are somehow shielded from the influence of politicians. What becomes your KPI for what to research?
Profit? - we already have a system set up for that. Number of lives saved? - How do you balance quality of life improvements against mortality?
Re:The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s...
by lkrubner on Wednesday March 22, 2017 @11:24AM
(#13931652)
If you took 20 minutes, you could easily look up the answer to your questions. We already have a system, and it works well, it only needs more money. SSRIs (serotonin reuptake inhibitors), Viagra, and countless other blockbuster drugs grew out of government funded research.
Therefore the government should pay for all of it. In the USA, since 1970, funding for science has declined. If we could merely get funding back to the trend line of 1930 to 1970, then the government would certainly be able to cover this kind of research. More so, it is completely incoherent for anyone to argue "We should leave this to the private sector because the private sector is more efficient than the government, but this process is wasteful and so we must grant a monopoly to whoever is willing to do this." Rather, as soon as someone says "We must grant a monopoly" they are also saying "the private sector market place has failed" and therefore they are also implicitly saying "The government should do this."