Comment on Moderna’s mRNA cancer vaccine works even better than thought

• I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

  source

  • Cannonhead2@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

    source

    • Tinidril@midwest.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

      healthpolicy-watch.news/u-s-government-invested-3…

      source
• ricecake@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

  source

  • jj4211@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

    source

    • Neekaneeka@lemmynsfw.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Your answers are very speculative when they could easily be verified.

      How big are the operating loans of a pharmaceutical company? Specifically those who mature over the course of a development cycle?

      Construction is commonly financed through loans which get covered in the sales price, so it’s a tried and true method with foreseeable margins and robust risk assessment. And notably covered in the annual reports of their finances.

      I find it hard to believe pharmaceuticals should be very different, and the lack of receipts makes it very dubious that’s the costs they’re covering.

      You made the claim though, please provide some evidence to back it up.

      source
• sartalon@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

  source
• SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Would somebody think of the poor pharmaceutical executives?

  source
• pixxelkick@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

  source

  • overzeetop@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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)

    source
• shalafi@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You’re not going to get a sympathetic ear around here. Lemmy wants everything for free. Bunch of children watching capitalism literally burn the world down, but has no clue that nice things cost effort, and effort = $.

  Now if you want to talk about making drug advertisements illegal, I’m all in. Wouldn’t that make a wonderful impact? Make big pharma put the money into R&D that they put into ads.

  source

  • luthis@lemmy.nz ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That’s what my taxes are for. I rarely pay more than $5 for medication, if anything. I also pay significantly less in taxes than US citizens and have less potholes in the roads.

    source
• corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yeah; it’s not like it’s insulin.

  source