Non-profit’s $300 hepatitis C cure as effective as $84k alternative

Re:Non-profit’s $300 hepatitis C cure as effective as $84k a... by EliRivers on Thursday April 12, 2018 @03:52AM (#16818810)

I understand the drug companies ("pharmaceutical industry" in the link below) pay about 60% of the research costs. It's a lot of it, but it's not orders-of-magnitude bigger than the public contribution.

https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-266...

Some would suggest that the drug companies actually take on the lower risk research, leaving the high risk work to be funded by other sources:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1027-mazzucato-bi...

There are more questions opened by these pieces, sure, but it's clear that we would still have research and still have cures without the businesses stumping up for research.

otherwise we will just get fewer new drugs.

I thought I had a link here somewhere, but can't find it; I have a strong suspicion that the companies have a preference to repackage or reformulate existing drugs, and that basic research on new drugs is disproportionately covered by the public purse and charity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Non-profit’s $300 hepatitis C cure as effective as $84k a... by mft_ on Thursday April 12, 2018 @04:42AM (#16819048)

> I thought I had a link here somewhere, but can't find it; I have a strong suspicion that the companies have a preference to repackage or reformulate existing drugs, and that basic research on new drugs is disproportionately covered by the public purse and charity.

Absolutely there are companies which do this, and there are some very interesting examples of somewhat shady practices, but the vast majority of companies which you think of as 'pharma' --i.e. big pharma, and the big biotechs-- survive by discovering or insourcing and then developing new drugs, and/or developing their existing drugs in new indications.

[ Parent | on HN ]