SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An analysis of research papers has found that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provided funding to the research of 210 new drugs that were approved from 2010 and 2016:
A new study makes a strong case for the importance of government support for basic research: Federally funded studies contributed to the science that underlies every one of the 210 new drugs approved between 2010 and 2016.
Researchers at Bentley University scoured millions of research papers for mentions of those 210 new molecular entities, or NMEs, as well as studies on their molecular targets. Then, they looked to see which of those studies had received any funding from the National Institutes of Health.
The authors say the study, published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the first to capture the full scope of public funding behind FDA-approved drugs, both directly and indirectly. They also say it points to the need for continued federal funding for basic science — which the Trump administration has previously suggested slashing.
"Knowing the scale of the investment in the basic science leading to new medicines is critical to ensuring that there is adequate funding for a robust pipeline of new cures in the future," said Dr. Fred Ledley, one of the study's authors and a Bentley University researcher who studies the intersection of science and industry.
Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010–2016 (open, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1715368115) (DX)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:01PM (8 children)
All anyone sees is the headline that 210 new drugs came from NIH-funded research.
Well, what about what you do NOT see? Maybe the NIH squandered resources on bad projects; under a more rigorous, market-based approach to funding research, maybe those squandered resources would have led to a total of 400 new drugs, or at least 210 drugs that are more effective. Or, maybe there would be only 100 new drugs, but they'd be more important to society because their research was determined by market signals rather than bureaucrats' gut feelings.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:11PM (7 children)
That might hold water if the point of the NIH research was to create drugs. It was not. So that's enough about that.
Limiting medical research to only the most profitable conditions is equally not a good foundation for allocation public health resources.
Snake-oil salesmen [wikipedia.org] have no chance, then. Good. Oh, wait. They do. So much for that.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:25PM (2 children)
Red herring. This has nothing to do with the argument at hand; I'm not arguing about the purpose of the NIH.
Straw man. I never said medical research should be constrained only to the most profitable conditions.
Also, I'm not sure exactly what you think the term "most profitable" means, or why it would make sense to deliberately neglect a "more profitable" prospect in favor of a "less profitable" prospect—only fantasies can neglect reality.
Straw man. I never said snake-oil salsesman would be precluded; in fact, my statement acknowledges that they would exist. You've missed the point entirely, and fabricated your own point with which to argue.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 16 2018, @03:35PM (1 child)
Well, if you're the same person in all three comments, AC, OK we'll go. (I was replying to two separate posts, but if they're all "you", ok). Actually, your initial comments were all false premises and conclusions not in evidence.
The first was not a red herring. The comment concluded that with more rigorous research funding there may have been 400 drugs, or maybe 100 more effective drugs. But since the point of NIH isn't to make drugs, arguing that more or better drugs could have come with different funding does not obtain. The premise of "squandered resources" - something not established at all (so it drops anyway) is invalid to base the conclusion on. So I don't have to deal with the flaw in arguing about "maybe we'd get different results with better management," because the results being pontificated on weren't the purpose of existence in the first place.
Second. Not a straw man. It is the refutation of the conclusion to your argument that prices in the market will allocate research funds better than a nonprofit governmental entity can. We seem to agree that if something isn't profitable, or something is less profitable than an alternative, it won't be researched. Remind me why this is preferable again? You can have high mortality low prevalence conditions, which almost by definition are not profitable to research. Conditions which are endemic to economically challenged areas generally have a hard time getting funding support. While it's a bit dated now, I'd refer you to this article for beginning to explore the topic of why there are market failures in research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326440/ [nih.gov] (Oops! Yep. It's available at NIH. Sorry about that.)
Third. Not a straw man. You suggest that reality is such that bad research quality will be exposed and therefore money will dry up for bad research. If this were true, panacea placebos would not exist (or continue their existence). But guess what [wikipedia.org]? You can find [amazon.com] lots and lots of silly assed [cljhealth.com] "research" performed. What I am saying is you are categorically wrong about this assertion.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:30AM
It's a strong indication that the research won't have positive return on investment.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 15 2018, @02:51AM (3 children)
I have to agree on the irrelevance of your post. Another obvious flaw with the above assertion is that if the purpose of the NIH is in part to squander funds (which incidentally is a thing with US federal government spending, a fair portion is deliberately wasted such as the Space Launch System and the F-35 jetfighter), then of course, it would be tautologically squandering funds, even if that squandering weren't explicitly spent on creating drugs.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday February 16 2018, @04:03PM (2 children)
Ignoratio elenchi. If it were squandering funds it would be squandering funds, yes. But that's something I'm not addressing at all. Since the AC's premise doesn't support the conclusion advanced anyway I don't have to address whether it is considered "squandering" or not. It's easier to note that the "bad projects" weren't aimed at drug creation therefore the argument is invalid, than involve myself in opinion as to what is and is not squandering. (Or whether NIH "squanders" money at all - which I'm still not involving myself in).
This sig for rent.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:46AM (1 child)
You should have said something else then rather than discounting possible squandering of public funds on the basis that it's not the NIH's job (or more accurately, not the NIH's only job) to create drugs. As the story indicates, NIH was apparently involved in all drug creation for six years through 2016, which does mean that someone over there considers it their job.
"Some potential" is not "the". You seem fairly confident in those things you can't see (to hearken back to the subject of this thread).
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:06PM
And when I RTFA I learned that what the NIH did was primary research on physiology and pathophysiology. "More than 90 percent of the publications were related to the biological targets of the drugs, not the drugs themselves. The authors of the new research say that shows that NIH funding for basic science complements industry research and drug development, which is mainly focused on applied science." That is NOT being, "invovled in all drug creation." That means the work the NIH did was used by the drug creators - not the same thing at all to what is being implied. IMVHO.
This sig for rent.