That’s a good question. It depends on the terms and conditions of the funding agency. Frequently the research is allowed to be patented, with some kind of profit sharing on the resulting product, e.g. 1/3 to the funding agency, 1/3 to the University that hosted the research, 1/3 to the spin-off company.
Is that very different than a name brand herbal remedy
Her pops is a Democrat.
That makes me grumbly.
I mean, if they want to improve on the research, that’s one thing. But we all payed for it, so…
“Expect the Republicans to outlaw it”
Nope, expect politicians to outlaw it. Note that Daddy dearest is a Democrat and those outrageous price raises did not excite much out of the Dems either when this occurred.
Greed and cronyism transcends party lines, always has, always will.
Presume a politician is an amoral crook with his or her hand jammed deep into your wallet or purse until proven different.
That’s exactly the problem – we spend far more on the lawyers and accountants writing these damn rules than we do on the actual health care itself.
I think frequently the research is purchased by a company for a tiny, tiny fraction of the money it makes the company that produces the drug. I was once on an eyedrop that I recall was purchased by the pharmaceutical company for a few million dollars from a university that had sales of about $1B a year. I thought it was Xalatan, but I can’t find the reference now, and I’ve been on a lot of different eyedrops.
It’s especially frustrating when the research itself was paid for in whole, or in part, by the taxpayers, who then can’t afford the resulting drug.
The worst is when they accept federal money, and work in federal labs, then patent it.
“How are we supposed to make up all the costs we didn’t pay for?”
Yeah, but it’s kind of unacceptable when what’s labeled as echinacea tests for no echinacea, but has plenty of ficus DNA. That shit keeps happening because the entire dietary supplement industry is unregulated (self-regulated fwiw.)
Hey, meth has plenty of science backing it up…
That phrase is top of the Republican playbook.
The invisible hand finally does something other than jerk itself off
“iw” pretty much nothing.
Or as Professor of Pharmacology David Colquhoun says, “Herbal medicine: giving patients an unknown dose of an ill-defined drug, of unknown effectiveness and unknown safety.”
I think I remember him saying exactly that, or being quoted at least on the SGU podcast.
Hence why free market meth is likely the key to the Republican replacement for Obamacare.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.