A large majority of people going into scientific research do so for a love of the subject and not to become rich. They just want to make enough money to live a decent life and pursue knowledge.
The following is sarcasm. If only one could think of a mechanism by which an entity controlled by people elected by the voting public could fund such things.
Some people like fixing problems for their own sake and giving away the fruits of their labor to maximize the overall benefit. The notion that the profit motive is the only reason anyone gets up in the morning is false.
An interviewer once inquired about the ownership of the polio vaccine patent, to which Salk famously answered, “Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”
On January 23rd, 1923 Banting, Best, and Collip were awarded the American patents for insulin. They sold the patent to the University of Toronto for $1 each. Banting notably said: “Insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world.” His desire was for everyone who needed access to it to have it.
Individuals often respond to social status incentives more than cash. Undoubtedly this invention helped Salk's financial and personal outlook in other ways.
Also the models of development of these is just completely different from what modern medicines often requires. Specifically, operateing large research labs (which are heavily regulated) and then pursuing the marathon that is FDA approval. Individuals will still tinker, but those industrial scale developments are not going to happen without funding.
I dunno, the reason that we have such long patent periods is supposedly to pay for all the losses in Phase 1/2/3. However, if we merely let scientists do clinical research, as per usual, and license the right to conduct these studies to contract research labs, and then license the production rights for the successful trials to contract manufacturers, we could probably cut out a huge amount of the waste and marketing spend by Pfizer/Novartis et al and still achieve the better goals.
In fact, because the people in this chain would be less incentivised to focus on diseases of rich people, then humanity might overall be better off.
Like, definitely there's costs associated with Phase 1/2/3 etc, but right now the actors in the chain have absolutely no incentives to limit these costs, as they help to justify the huge profits gained from the temporary monopoly of patents.
Also, it's worth noting that all the big Pharma companies spend much, much more on marketing than they do on research.
What's the right age for us to start decrying someone's continued existence? Is it wrong for people with chronic health conditions to seek treatment rather than just dying?
>What's the right age for us to start decrying someone's continued existence?
Either 22 or 30. There was a great movie about this, based on a novel. In the movie, it was 30, but in the novel the age was 22. When your lifespan is up, you go to a show called "Carousel" where all your friends watch you being killed.
Anyway, I think the OP, plus almost everyone here on HN, is overdue for Carousel.
> What's the right age for us to start decrying someone's continued existence?
It's not about age, it's about the cost of living vs the quality of life. These "miracle treatments" are often anything but. In many cases, they are a million-dollar ticket to a tortured existence.
If I live 60+ years, I've had a good run... if I need a $1MM treatment, my body is likely in a very bad state. My quality of life can't be very good at that point.
So when I think of my options:
- Extend my medical-torture hell for another 2 years
- Buy a home for both of my children
- Do a LOT of cocaine for 3 months
I'm really not inclined to go with the medical-torture hell.
I'm not afraid of death, we are all going to die, and in a finite universe, I consider it morally wrong to use limited resources on a project with awful diminishing returns. Especially when the project doesn't even make me feel good.
So what does it get me? 2 more years of talking to my children? If I've lived 60 years, I've taught them enough. My life is enough, and enough is enough. No need to be greedy about it when your life is already good.
> Is it wrong for people with chronic health conditions to seek treatment rather than just dying?
I don't think so, personally. The same arguments do not apply, this is a completely different situation.
I didn’t make claims about how PE hospitals make a profit. I just said that no one should profit from denying care. I can think of a situation in which a hospital’s owners want to make sure their return on their investment exceeds x% per year and the hospital administrators deny care based on this consideration (otherwise they might get fired for not generating enough profit). This isn’t the scenario I had in mind when I wrote that no one should profit from denying care. WhenI wrote that I was thinking of insurance companies and wanted to convey a sense that profit driven motives in health care can have bad consequences. Some things ought not be profit driven.
Sure they do. If his real estate company closes a lower dollar volume of deals, because money that would’ve been going to sellers is now going to banks as interest, then its stock is likely to go down.
This is largely a zero-sum game: if the bank is taking more money out of the transaction, sellers (and their agents who work for a percentage of the selling price) will be taking less. It’s not like buyers can magically afford to pay the same principal as before plus new higher interest rates.
This assumes that most people spend the absolute most they can afford for their home purchase. The question is going to be how often is that actually the case?
More often than not? That's why auto dealerships talk about the monthly payment not the sale price. A majority of Americans are consistently maxed out on all types of debt with Covid resetting that a bit but those savings are rapidly depleting.
