SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The problems of developing new antibiotics is that it is a never ending technology race.
New drugs are targeted at those areas where there are a sufficient number of patients to (eventually) pay for the cost of development. Only when existing drugs no longer are effective (due to resistant strains of infectious agents), will doctors prescribe newer more expensive drugs. Some antibiotics and antivirals will end up being niche drugs, for those with special needs.
These situations can lead to an inability to recover developmental costs before the patent expires
This means, the developers are tempted to keep the prices very high. Unfortunately, this discourages use and doctors refuse to prescribe the drug. Some drug companies launch a massive advertising campaign to pump up sales before the patents can expire. This encourages over use, which detracts from the useful life of the drugs.
Too many drug companies therefore, have started shying away from expensive development on a drug that will never make money for them.
ScienceMag features a story on a UK Government proposal for a global government administered program that would guarantee drug developers a profit, rather than extending patent length.
The new report full text pdf here estimates that the world needs 15 new antibiotics per decade, at least four of which should have new mechanisms of action to target the most harmful pathogens.
Toward that end the UK plan would create a $2 billion "global innovation fund," bankrolled by pharmaceutical companies to kick-start development of promising drug studies.
To incentivize drug development without encouraging overuse, the report promotes an idea gaining popularity in antibiotics: "de-linking" a drugmaker's profits from the drug's sales. Such strategies aim to give companies assurance that they will make money if they bring valuable new antibiotics to market, regardless of the number of pills prescribed right away.
- They propose a system by which a global organisation has the authority and resources to commit lump-sum payments to successful drug developers, irrespective of current sales.
- Secondly, they would also jump-start a new innovation cycle in antibiotics by getting more money into early stage research by boosting funding for blue-sky research into drugs and diagnostics.
- Finally they propose to further reduce barriers to drug development by lowering costs, improving the efficiency of research, and lowering global regulatory barriers wherever possible without compromising patients' safety.
They suggest that a comprehensive package of interventions could cost as little 16 billion USD and no more than 37 billion USD over the course of 10 years and would be sufficient to radically overhaul the antibiotics pipeline.
Presumably such a program would come with some requirement to keep prices low, or require them to license others to manufacture the drugs at reasonable royalty rates well before the patents expire.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @08:44AM
the USSR proved that it works so we should all do it
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 15 2015, @09:25AM
You're right. We should leave antibiotic development to the mighty free market. I'll just go and ask the Invisible Hand to get onto that right now, hold on.... What's that Invisible Hand? It isn't profitable to develop new antibiotics, so you won't do it? No new antibiotics have been brought to market in decades? Antibiotic resistance is on course for a global crisis that will kill millions? But you still won't lift so much as an Invisible Finger because there's no money in it. Right, understood.
Oh dear, it appears that capitalism is the wrong tool for this job. Maybe we should try something else.
Here's a clue, AC fuckwit. Socialism, capitalism... these are not the ends, they are the means. They are not holy causes to be preached and fought for. They are tools to do a job. Would you trust a carpenter who thinks every carpentry project should be completed using only a saw, and that anyone who picks up a screwdriver is a godless heathen? No, neither would I. Sometimes, to get a job done you need a saw. Sometimes, you need a screwdriver. For most big projects, you'll want both. Socialism and capitalism can co-exist quite happily, and they get a hell of a lot more done together than either one ever would alone.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday May 15 2015, @09:34AM
The above should read "No new antibiotic classes have been brought to market in decades? "
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday May 17 2015, @08:38AM
Antibiotic development is profitable. It's just not as profitable as say, developing a new version of penis hardener, or hair regrowth, or to make skin soft and wrinkle-free.
wtf, evidently my comment has managed to be caught by the spam filter.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @12:57PM
The USSR was socialist for about the time it took for the ink on the order creating the Cheka to dry. However, the Soviet Union was a single-party oligarchy, which is obviously inferior to our two-party plutocracy..
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday May 15 2015, @05:10PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @09:20PM
Death panels, decided by the contents of your wallet. Basically, supporters of for-profit healthcare are supporters of executing the poor.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @09:42PM
This isn't socialism, it is crony capitalism. Socialism would be the government bypassing the corporations and developing the antibiotics themselves, and for something like antibiotics where there is near zero incentive for businesses to develop them, but there is a great public need for them, governments directly funding (rather than indirectly funding that is being proposed) this research is absolutely the right thing to do.
And the USSR were communist, not socialist. I think you should go take Politics 101 and find out go find out what words like communist, socialist and capitalist actually mean. There is room for both socialist and capitalist policies (applied where they actually make sense) in a healthy society.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @10:57PM
Marx said that when Socialism/Communism/Marxism (he didn't make a distinction) reached its pinnacle, government wouldn't be necessary.
Marx said that government is simply a way for an elite class to oppress the workers.
In Socialism/Communism/Marxism, the workers are empowered.
Don't let anyone tell you that a system is "Socialist" if that condition doesn't exist.
The Soviet Union was a Totalitarian government with a Capitalist economy.
Empowered workers is the opposite of what existed there.
(Can you say "Forced Collectivism"? I knew you could.)
The USSR was an example of State Capitalism.
Any business there was governed by a board of directors--just like other Capitalist operations.
The workers had no say in selecting that board; the board was appointed by the elites--just like other Capitalist operations.
(Points to you for mentioning Crony Capitalism; another name for that is Fascism--what the USSR actually had.)
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 16 2015, @08:28AM
tfa is talking about a socialist idea in that the cost is socialized, while the corporations keep the profits and taxpayers pay again as consumers
dipshit socialists seem to think that government money grows on trees... get a fucking job and you might start to realize how much it costs to maintain a government
the strength of capitalism is that if something is too expensive, people can't/don't buy it and it puts pressure on companies to bring the cost down. when governments guarantee profits, companies will ALWAYS jack the prices up. it happens in education too (universities in the US are expensive only because of government guaranteed student loans). this stuff is not rocket science, or speculation. keynesian economics has proven itself full of shit for over half a century, but i guess fools will be fooled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 16 2015, @11:51AM
the strength of capitalism is that if something is too expensive
You're describing A MARKET (not Capitalism).
If every Capitalist had died yesterday, markets would still exist.
Thanks for playing.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 17 2015, @11:14AM
Fair enough, what sort of government the USSR was beside the point, as long as we're clear it wasn't socialist. Although just because Marx didn't make a distinction between Socialism and Communism, that doesn't mean there isn't one today, language can change. Perhaps I could do with taking a class on politics myself..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 18 2015, @06:02AM
Until you shake that idea, you are just spinning your wheels.
Those are an ECONOMIC system.
The opposite of those is Capitalism.
For Socialism/Communism/Marxism to work, the governmental system must be true Democracy.
(EVERYTHING gets voted on and every worker's vote is EQUAL.)
HTH HAND
-- gewg_