←back to thread

Cost of developing new drugs may be lower than industry claims: trial

(www.theguardian.com)
275 points swores | 1 comments | 25 Apr 24 12:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
czl ◴[26 Apr 24 07:54 UTC] No.40166853[source]▶
Say I run 10 trials that cost 10m each but only one of these finds a drug that works. How much did the trial cost to discover that drug? How much did it cost to discover that drug? 10m? 10*10m?
replies(2): >>40168065 #>>40173094 #
valiant55 ◴[26 Apr 24 11:28 UTC] No.40168065[source]▶
10M. Failure is still useful information so the other 9 trials cost 10M each but didn't produce a viable product, but that doesn't mean nothing of value was gained.
replies(1): >>40172966 #
oneshtein ◴[26 Apr 24 19:17 UTC] No.40172966[source]▶
With just 10M in bank, you will fail and learn a lot.
replies(1): >>40172986 #
okasaki ◴[26 Apr 24 19:20 UTC] No.40172986[source]▶
So like any business. Just because 90% of restaurants fail doesn't mean the cost of running a restaurant is 10x of what it actually takes to run a successful one.
replies(3): >>40173055 #>>40173562 #>>40173626 #
1. FredPret ◴[26 Apr 24 19:26 UTC] No.40173055[source]▶
Of course it is. Investors have to pony up for 100% of the restaurants, so society as a whole has to pay one way or another for each economic experiment

EDIT

I should clarify - since investors know they have to pay for 100% of restaurants, of which 90% will fail, they price this in when they decide to invest in a restaurant.

Drug companies have to pay for all ten trials, not just the one that works out.

Restaurants are a bad example because people invest in it on an emotional basis. Drug trials are probably decided on more the same basis as bond issues or insurance.

If the risk of failure is high, investors have to demand a high premium or go broke.