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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (116286)	7/23/2009 9:19:54 AM
From: NAG1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541945

Allen, <<The cost of producing a drug necessarily includes the cost of that research. But of course, that cost is pretty much the same for any two drugs. The only place they will differ significantly is in the cost of manufacture.>> I would think that the cost for research for different drugs would vary quite a bit. I think it would depend on the effectiveness of the drug, the disease process treated as well as whatever monitoring would be needed. For example, something that would need an MRI as a F/U would significantly increase the cost over something that might just need some blood test monitoring. Also something that cured 10% of a disease process would need a larger number of study entrants than something that cured 50% of a disease process. The process of competition of the various drugs also comes down to effectiveness and cost. I think that cost/benefit ratios are things that will be in our future but with our melting pot society, will be more difficult to implement since there are many groups that respond differently to different medicines and disease processes. That will drive the costs up. Neal

To: Cogito who wrote (116286)	7/23/2009 11:06:50 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541945

Allen; If they are rewarded by the government for coming up with cheap, effective drugs, then that's what we'll get. I don't follow the logic here? Shouldn't the goal to be to come up with the most effective drug? All of the low hanging fruit has been picked as far as drugs are concerned - so now it is extremely difficult to find any drug that is effective. If you now switch incentives to be just "cheap" drugs you remove a great deal of the incentive from biotechs. You might as well close their doors send scientist home and create government labs. That was tried before .........and was called USSR. The news today on MEDX is huge for biotechs. All the investment money that has been invested in this company over the years now needs a new home. Much of it will pour into other more speculative biotechs. It is this incentive that makes biotechs one of the few shining stars in American business. steve