1243
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] xenspidey@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 year ago

Depends on how much time was spent on R&D. You have to recover those costs. I know everyone wants everything for free but it takes a fuck ton of man hours and tons of investments to get to this point. You can't just give it away unfortunately.

[-] I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world 72 points 1 year ago

Did they pay for their own R&D? Usually that get socialized and then the profits are privatized, it's the American Way.

[-] Cannonhead2@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I like to shit on big pharma as much as the next guy, but in this case, yes they do. Developing new drugs is a ludicrously risky and expensive venture, typically costing billions of dollars. Sometimes it may be subsidized somewhat, sure, but the vast majority of it is coming out of pocket for these companies.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 26 points 1 year ago

Sometimes it may be subsidized somewhat, sure, but the vast majority of it is coming out of pocket for these companies.

You seem awfully sure about that. What are you basing it on? MRNA research alone was massively funded with taxpayer money. Coding for new proteins is almost trivial compared to what went into developing the technology.

https://healthpolicy-watch.news/u-s-government-invested-31-9-billion-in-mrna-vaccine-research-and-procurement/

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 year ago

You actually can. The simplest way is to literally just give the research away and charge a fair price for the medicine. That's allowed.

The slightly more capitalist way would be to sell the rights to the government to recoup costs.

The slightly less capitalist way is for the government to notify you that you don't own it anymore because of the public good.

This is also ignoring exactly how much the public already funds the basic research that goes into pharmaceuticals, which is quite a bit more than you might expect, so the argument of what's even "fair" is less clearly in favor of the company than you might expect.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

There's a tricky balance.

For every endeavor that could recoup its costs in a fairly reasonable way, there are several other attempts that end in failure.

If you know that best case your project can be modestly better than break even, but it will most likely completely fail, would you invest in it?

I could respect an argument for outright socializing pharmaceutical efforts and rolling the needs into taxes and cutting out the capitalist angle entirely, but so long as you rely on capitalist funding model in any significant amount, then you have to allow for some incentive. When the research is pretty much fully funded by public funds, that funding should come with strings attached, but here it seems the lead up was largely in capitalist territory.

[-] sartalon@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

I use to agree with you but that metric sailed a long to me ago. All pricing, everywhere now, is based on how much they think people will pay, not cost plus a reasonable profit.

A $1300 iPhone probably cost around $200 to actually produce, and that covers development.

Any cost savings on production, or cheaper materials, is profit passed on to the stockholder. It does not go to workers and certainly does not go to a cheaper sales price.

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Would somebody think of the poor pharmaceutical executives?

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah; it's not like it's insulin.

[-] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

True, but individuals dont have to pay for that. This is 100% something that can be taxpayer funded as it pretty much benefits everyone.

Otherwise, it just becomes a penalty for poor people and another luxury for the rich.

[-] overzeetop@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Nearly all of the basic research is already taxpayer funded through research grants. There are still development costs (especially trials and such), but most of the money spent my large pharmaceutical companies goes into marketing. (it's been a few years, but last time I looked in the mid-teens it was more than 50% of their overall budget iirc)

this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
1243 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

61916 readers
1822 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS