Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (745518)	7/17/2006 5:42:32 PM
From: pompsander	Respond to of 769670

The distinction I am trying to draw is between privately funded research aimed at "most profitable" vs. broader based research (often with public funds through grants) that may have profit potential but are focused differently. for example, here is an article on Polio. While the March of Dimes deserves tremendous credit for helping focus the initial discovery, it was huge government outlays after the initial Salk vaccine proved effective that allowed for purification of the vaccine process and development of the Sabin method. The government stepped in with millions of dollars of support on development, education and distribution. Did some make profit off it this research. Yes. Were federal government grants critical to continuing the research to maximize the value of the original discovery and spread it worldwide at very low cost? Yes. Is there a role for federal money to refine and develop alternative methods of medical treatment...maybe above and beyond initial discoveries? Yes, I think so. accessexcellence.org

To: TideGlider who wrote (745518)	7/17/2006 5:48:36 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Re: "I would certainly enjoy reading about a medicaL discovery that is IN the broader public good, yet has no profit potential." No problem. That's easy. (To make a more honest argument though, we should take out the 'no profit potential' qualifier... and replace it with the phrase 'not economic'): 1) There is FAR MORE profit in coming up with a TREATMENT for any chronic disease (i.e., an expensive pill that must be taken every day :-) then in coming up with a CURE that totally eliminates a disease... or something like a vaccine that prevents disease before it can happen. Any Board of Directors (when it gets time to approve proposals for R&D spending) will CERTAINLY understand that.... 2) A number of disease conditions are RARE enough, so that it's likely uneconomic to expend massive outlays searching for treatments or cures for them (thus: 'orphan drug' legislative attempts to tilt this economic calculus). 3) Because of patent laws, most naturally occuring foods, plants and biologic extracts are NOT PATENTABLE. So, even if they could CURE or adequately TREAT certain disease conditions --- no private or public company would waste the money necessary to conduct scientific trials to establish efficacy before the F.D.A. (hundreds of millions, usually...) because without PATENTS they would be unable to PROFIT from the substances --- even if they were effective and cheap at curing or treating disease(s). The history of drug discovery is FULL of specific examples of this... starting with aspirin.