←back to thread

275 points swores | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kazinator ◴[] No.40174260[source]
The cost of developing drugs is high because of all the drugs that fail, after requiring lots of money to develop. You can't just look at the successful drug and say that's the cost. There are drugs that don't get to the trial stage, so also you can't just look at trials, even if you include failed ones.

The researchers cited in this article seem to be promulgating the fallacy that we need only look at the cost of a successful drug trial, and that's the cost. The drugs magically appeared out of nowhere, for free, and equally magically, they are working drugs, so we already know our trial will succeed. It's just a charade we have to go pay for to get the government's rubber stamp, and then it's all good!

replies(3): >>40175091 #>>40176436 #>>40182039 #
ramraj07 ◴[] No.40176436[source]
I used to be in the academic side of the so-called industry and I can tell you that most drugs fail because of horrendously bad decisions and hypotheses. Most companies make decisions on what drugs to take to trial on stupidly misleading preclinical data and have been graciously rewarded for their mistakes with no consequences.
replies(2): >>40176557 #>>40178506 #
refurb ◴[] No.40176557[source]
There is no "academic side" of the pharmaceutical industry. There is just academia.

And the goal of academia (publishing) are very different than the industry (identifying a new drug).

replies(2): >>40176824 #>>40180805 #
1. sudosysgen ◴[] No.40180805[source]
Academia identified over 30% of approved drugs in the past 10 years, and that share is growing. There is a ton of incentive for academics to identify new drugs.