I don't understand how comparing the spending of an American institution to worldwide spending is relevant. NIH isn't the only governmental institution doing research. But I may not understand something.

Private industry has been very effective indeed at hooking millions of people on opiates. Meanwhile, where are all those new antibiotics?

Market competition is an important element missing from government research, but commercial entities have their own pathologies.

> There's definitely a reasonable debate to be had about public funding models, but it ought to be properly contextualized by the realities.

I favor acknowledging that all markets are constructed, even supposedly "unregulated" ones. The trick is then to construct hybrid models incorporating marketplaces and informed by the limitations of both government and industry.

I'm not sure what your point here is. Do you think pharmaceutical companies aren't trying to produce new antibiotics? Do you think there isn't any money in that? Because there most certainly is. It's just a hard problem, we've mined a lot of the low hanging fruit in the antibiotic space and squandered it on colds and farm animals.

> Market competition is an important element missing from government research, but commercial entities have their own pathologies.

I agree with this.

> I favor acknowledging that all markets are constructed, even supposedly "unregulated" ones. The trick is then to construct hybrid models incorporating marketplaces and informed by the limitations of both government and industry.

I'm not sure what you mean here by 'constructed'. Unregulated markets are genuinely not 'constructed', they are truly organic. That doesn't mean they are morally good, just that they aren't constructed.

I agree that hybrid models are desirable. I'm not sure what the right answer there is. My intuition about markets tells me that the best approach might be for the government to provide guaranteed cash prizes for drugs meeting certain criteria, rather than funding specific projects. That would allow the market to choose how best to meet those criteria, while still incentivizing the stuff the public wants incentivized. That being said, if you define metrics, they can get gamed, so figuring out how best to define those things is difficult and essential.

Opiate addiction is a direct result of government policy regarding drugs going back over a century. You can't put the blame for that on pharmaceutical companies.

> Meanwhile, where are all those new antibiotics?

We're literally commenting on an article about curing Hepatitis C. Not too long ago, chronic Hepatitis C was a long and slow death sentence. There was a time during which having HCV was considered worse than being diagnosed with HIV, because the prognosis and treatment was so bad. Now, it's completely curable in just a few months. The cure for Hepatitis C was funded and developed in the US off by private industry, using funds obtained from pharmaceutical sales.

Incidentally, there have been discoveries recently about developing new lines of antibiotics, though that's not really the issue. The point is that you're missing the forest for the trees, if you ignore all of the unbelievable advances that have been made in pharmaceutical development in the last 25 years alone. Almost all of that - including pharmaceuticals developed by European companies - was funded from US pharmaceutical sales.

Many of those who became addicts would not have save for sinister machinations by Purdue Pharma. See this article on "Oxycontin's 12-hour problem":

http://www.latimes.com/projects/oxycontin-part1/

I don't like prohibition and the recreational drug market is ripe for reform. There are better and worse ways to do that -- see Mark Kleiman's writings for strategies to construct legal marijuana markets where the incentives for companies to manufacture addicts are minimized.

But the opiate crisis is not an example of supply inadequacy due to prohibition. The pharmaceutical industry has artificially increased demand.

If you believe that we should be skeptical of both, perhaps there's common ground where we can agree. Power corrupts, power collects within both government and industry, and they constantly reinforce each other through corruption and regulatory capture. The state has the monopoly on violence so it deserves special care, but commercial entities (especially multi-national corporations) have plenty of power to threaten and ruin individuals.

True, though one has to remember three things: more efficient is not necessarily very efficient; a companies goal is profit, not the best product/result; and companies factor in the ability to fail. The successful company was more effective with their money, but there may be numerous failed efforts and if you factored in their costs the balance is different. After the fact we ascribe great intelligence to the choices of the successful companies rather than the same intelligence but more luck than the unsuccessful companies.

Which doesn't contradict any of your points - I'm just pointing out to others tgat it isn't as simple as industry good with money, govt bad with money.

Consider, how much money drug companies spend advertising, now reolise there are basically one new drug per week or less if you exclude packing drifts A and drug B in one pill and calling it something else. Doctors can easily keep up with that rate of new drugs without a lot of effort.

That's true, but a fraction of that is spent on actual drug discovery. The NIH funds a lot of non-pharmaceutical research.