One for the hippies
 

[Closed] One for the hippies

Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

I'll field this, given just today the company I work for, a leading CRO, has brought up the spectre of redundancies. Basically, the market is slitting its own throat to try and get the meagre products to be tested from Big Pharma, because Big Pharma is looking at, in cases like Pfizer, 40% of their products going generic licence in the next few years. And so far, novel drug compounds are getting harder and costlier to produce.
In other words, the biggest companies in play are unable to bring the goods to the table like a decade ago. And what they do bring, everyone is falling over themselves to test since outsourcing replaced in-house testing in most companies. In the UK, we've seen plenty of R&D sites close down simply because one company may no longer see a profit to be made in developing, say, neurological drugs.
This is the drug crunch, much like the spectrum crunch coming to telecoms.

http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/uxn7r/computer_model_successfully_predicts_drug_side/

Not to mention the interesting comments as to how we are nowhere near being able to replace animal testing.

Anyway, anyone care to suggest how we bring the cost of drugs down for developing nations whilst bringing in enough money to develop the more expensive time consuming drugs for the rarer or harder to treat diseases?

Increase the cost of treatment for diseases related to lifestyle (smoking, drinking, obesity) so that we can subsidize those that are not? If pharma does that though, we increase the total cost to the NHS which would decrease it's total budget. So perhaps we need to find a way of directly passing on the increased cost to the consumer (shock horror.... privatize the NHS more?)

I'm thinking aloud.


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 10:54 pm
Posts: 6842
Full Member
 

What does this have to do (really) with "occupy type hippies"?
Are you against free markets and fair competition?
Just playing devils advocate.


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:00 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

No I am totally for. I think the markets can be used to subsidize the treatment of diseases that are not profitable. If our big drug companies fail, I don't see anyone else stepping in to do that kind of R&D work.

Maybe someone could enlighten me?


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:03 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I don't understand what it's got to do with "occupy type hippies" either. Where do bankers, financial institutions, and austerity, come into it ?


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:05 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
Topic starter
 

I'll change it to hippies then! I seem to remember a few of those types on here explaining how evil the big pharmaceutical companies are (animal testing, profits etc). I thought that thread might enlighten them a little.


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:07 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Anyway, anyone care to suggest how we bring the cost of drugs down for developing nations whilst bringing in enough money to develop the more expensive time consuming drugs for the rarer or harder to treat diseases?

Cut down on the back room wastage. The commercial side of the pharma companies wastes huge amounts of money. It might not be the solution, but it's a start.


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:07 pm
Posts: 6842
Full Member
 

Ever played Monopoly?


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

One of the conundrums here is drug companies want to develop profitable drugs - that means drug treatments for diseases of western affluence such as diabetes and stroke - not live saving treatments for diseases of poverty as there is no money in it.
However that is a more complex issue requiring government guidance

What I would do is give ten years patent protection from the point it comes to market - not as at the moment 20 years from when the drug is first synthesised. If a drug is slow to get to market a company may only end up with a few years to get its money - and there is huge pressure to test quickly rather than reliably.

animal testing remains controversial as its really not terribly reliable


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:16 pm
Posts: 17
Free Member
 

development costs need to be recouped in order to keep the whole thing moving.

Currently there is a short window to do this before drugs become generic.

Either we need to pay more short term or extend the license??

For every drug that makes is plenty don't so these need to be paid for.

As for replacing animal testing AFAIK it's a legal requirement. The cosmetics industry was mostly using older products tweaked slightly to avoid retesting.

Carefully controlled and regulated animal testing is important here.


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:20 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Mike hence my suggestion of ten years from when it comes to market rather than 20 years for synthesis / first testing until it can be made as a genearic


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:23 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Rather than subsidise, perhaps we only need to privatise the treatment for 'lifestyle' diseases.


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:26 pm
Posts: 17
Free Member
 

Slower connection here TJ (might actually agree with you!!)

Most people are unable to see how a collection of powders mixed together can cost more than 50p. Root cause is mostly a lack of understanding of how things work and the amount of work involved.


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:27 pm
 grum
Posts: 4531
Free Member
 

Anyway, anyone care to suggest how we bring the cost of drugs down for developing nations whilst bringing in enough money to develop the more expensive time consuming drugs for the rarer or harder to treat diseases?

Ok, as a hippy, I'll bite. Is it not still worthwhile for people like Pfizer to make drugs and make a modest profit? Do they [i]need[/i] to make lots more than the 2.5 billion dollars a quarter they currently do in order to bother doing more research? They just laid off 2400 people in R&D in this country anyway.

http://www.pharmatimes.com/article/11-02-01/Pfizer_profits_soar_Sandwich_site_to_be_shuttered.aspx


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:28 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Bwaarp,
Have you looked at Israel's Teva Pharmaceutical? Or India's Dr Reddys? Interesting where the latter is increasingly looking to grow. Undercutting US cos in their home market rather than sticking to developing economies. The moral and economic issues here are fascinating!


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:45 pm
Posts: 5559
Free Member
 

I dont think we have to do anything except deregulate obviously. The market is perfect and it will all sort itself out to the ultimate satisfaction of all. This is what markets do.
OR
We could nationalise them all and make them work for the good of humanity rather than their shareholders, obviously this would curtail all the magic the markets do and become instantly inefficient and make nothing so probably best to not even consider this.
The hippy wonders where he put his lighter , starts looking for it, forgets he was looking for it/what he was doing, sits back down then remembers what he was doing due to be unable to light his reefer....DOH


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:51 pm
Posts: 17
Free Member
 

Junkyard to sure how much sarcasm was in the one!!


 
Posted : 12/06/2012 11:54 pm