Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the funding++ dept.

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)


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:09PM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:09PM (#637781)
    As a US citizen, I not only have the privilege of paying 5000% markup on prescriptions but my taxes also fund an organization that helped discover every drug for the last 6 years.

    I look forward to someone from Europe telling me how I personally should fix said system and also how their government funded lab of 3 grad student is of equal import as the NIH.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:24PM (8 children)

      by NewNic (6420) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:24PM (#637796) Journal

      Socialize the losses, privatize the profits.

      Until the idiots who keep supporting this idea get it out of their heads that policies that only benefit the super-wealthy don't actually benefit them, things will not change.

      The US isn't a capitalist country: there is too much crony capitalism.

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:39PM (6 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:39PM (#637815)

        If you socialize the losses, that's theft.

        If you socialize the profits, that's theft.

        The problem is socializing; the problem is socialism; socialism is theft in every case.

        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @08:19PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @08:19PM (#637840)

          Herpy derpy doooo!

          I know, lets play 1-D CHESS!! Gotta give the troll a chance amirite?

        • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday February 14 2018, @08:22PM (4 children)

          by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @08:22PM (#637844) Journal

          Capitalize Everying! It Is The Only Way!

          --
          "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @08:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @08:27PM (#637848)

            A resource becomes "capital" when the ownership over that resources becomes well defined.

            • The Tragedy of the Commons expresses the importance of having well defined ownership.
            • The desire for voluntary interaction leads one to a philosophy of ownership called "Capitalism".
          • (Score: 5, Touché) by DannyB on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:53PM (1 child)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:53PM (#637902) Journal

            Capitalize Everying! It Is The Only Way!

            THEN PEOPLE ACCUSE YOU OF SHOUTING EVEN WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING NORMALLY.

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:57AM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:57AM (#638064) Journal

              Capitalize Everying! It Is The Only Way!

              THEN PEOPLE ACCUSE YOU OF SHOUTING EVEN WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING NORMALLY.

              +1 INFORMATIVE

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @12:56AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @12:56AM (#637979)

            OK, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS GOING TO SOLVE ANYTHING. MAKES IT LOOK LIKE I AM SHOUTING.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:03PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:03PM (#637934)

        I worked for almost 3 years for a company that was mostly funded by government grants, those grants paid for our efforts to commercialize an academic technology for clinical use. We spent about 6 months transforming the tech from MatLab and Fortran command line processing of data to a C++ based GUI application, we spent the balance of the time generating paperwork for the FDA to obtain permission to market. So, not only was the government paying the FDA to review our application (multiple times since they had a department policy of rejecting all first applications), but they were also paying us to prepare the applications for them.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:34PM (#637810)

      I hold stock in 2 pharmaceutical companies. Dividend checks from both come in quarterly. Thanks Chumps!

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by RedIsNotGreen on Wednesday February 14 2018, @08:10PM

      by RedIsNotGreen (2191) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @08:10PM (#637832) Homepage Journal

      Don't forget, if you want to read any of these studies, you'll probably have to pay journal fees, too!

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:30PM

      by frojack (1554) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:30PM (#637947) Journal

      I not only have the privilege of paying 5000% markup on prescriptions but my taxes also fund an organization that helped discover every drug for the last 6 years.

      So shouldn't these drug formulas be immediately declared public domain, and generic manufacturers invited to bring down costs?
      Certainly there must be something that can be done to shorten or invalidate a patent on US funded research!

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:48AM (#638113)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending [wikipedia.org]

      I'm not sure. It seems that if you order this by chart, US is not exactly spending that much anyway. But yes, your system is fucked up. You are paying 5000% markup to pay for the commercials to sell you more of the crap you don't need, not for research ;) Enjoy your Viagra commercials.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:36PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:36PM (#637813)

    I mean, why is this surprising?

    When a violently imposed monopoly says it's going to be the source of money for something, then guess what? Every other source dries up, either because that other source chooses to spend its money elsewhere, or because its money is taken by the VIM.

    • It proves the importance of money; it does NOT prove the importance of a government-controlled source for money.

    • Maybe we would have had better innovation if research were more constrained by market considerations instead of bureaucrats playing with other people's money.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:41PM (2 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:41PM (#637953) Journal

      I mean,

      I mean is meant to clarify something you have said before, not to start an initial statement.

      Only professional athletes who did not finish highschool start a response with "i mean".

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:43PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:43PM (#637954)

        I mean,

        I mean is meant to clarify something you have said before, not to start an initial statement.

        Only anarcho-capitalist morons who did not finish highschool start a response with "i mean".

        There. FTFY.

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:01AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:01AM (#637981)

          I MEAN (oh, sorry, I was still trying to capitalize everything), NOBODY EXPECTS the Violent Imposition! Except, about now, we do expect some jock anarcho-capitalist libertariantard to bring it up. Doncha just HATE the smell of violent imposition in the morning?

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:22AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:22AM (#638071) Journal

      Yeah, we all know you're an Emacs guy...heretic.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:47PM (11 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 14 2018, @07:47PM (#637821) Journal
    First, as noted already, this is a classic case of "socialize the losses". I know a bunch of people believe that businesses will just cough up, if additional burdens like high minimum wage laws are imposed on them. So why wouldn't they cough up, if they have to pay for their own research?

    Second, this also allows government to pick winners and losers. If you want your drug to be in the market, you need to play ball with the NIH and hope some more powerful competitor can't block your funding.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by unauthorized on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:48PM (7 children)

      by unauthorized (3776) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:48PM (#637897)

      So why wouldn't they cough up, if they have to pay for their own research?

      Because they won't do their own research. If you increase the minimal wage, the companies will be forced to pay their workers more or face prosecution. If you stop giving them free research, they are under no obligation to pay for research. There is a finite amount of capital and the capitalist model encourages investment into short-term goals with profit margins that can be identified ahead of time. What libertarians propose is that this will incentivize people to seek the greater profit margins of innovation, but what happens in reality is the exact opposite.

      Take for example the gaming industry. Large corporations keep rehashing the same old shit over and over again, and it takes innovative indie developers to develop new ideas. However the gaming industry is special in that the cost of entry is very low, you simply cannot have indie drug research or indie space tech.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:55PM (#637931)

        You absolutely can have indie drug research, there are just major bureaucratic and legal hurdles to manufacturing and distributing.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:34PM

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:34PM (#637951) Journal

        You were doing well, till you let us know about your area of expertise, the gaming industry.

        FFS, this has nothing at all in common with gaming. There is no government agency providing gate keeping services to the gaming industry!!

        Sometimes it wise to end your post one paragraph early.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 15 2018, @12:52AM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 15 2018, @12:52AM (#637978) Journal

        Because they won't do their own research. If you increase the minimal wage, the companies will be forced to pay their workers more or face prosecution. If you stop giving them free research, they are under no obligation to pay for research.

        Sorry, you're not getting it. Companies are just as "forced" to employ people as they are forced to do research. They always have the choices of automation, employment in the developing world, or just not doing the work at all. Meanwhile, abandoning research altogether will eventually either force the company to invest in someone else's research or disappear.

        There is a finite amount of capital and the capitalist model encourages investment into short-term goals with profit margins that can be identified ahead of time.

        And what other model is any different? Short term thinkers circularly act the same no matter the economic model. What changes is that they get rewarded in some systems. That's happening in the present government nanny research models. Government does the research hence greatly reduced need for businesses to pay for their own research.

        Take for example the gaming industry. Large corporations keep rehashing the same old shit over and over again, and it takes innovative indie developers to develop new ideas. However the gaming industry is special in that the cost of entry is very low, you simply cannot have indie drug research or indie space tech.

        And government funding is one of the big reasons for that. It's hard to enter a market when the established players have government funding to lower the risk of their high cost research and the indie does not.

        • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:12AM (1 child)

          by unauthorized (3776) on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:12AM (#637987)

          Sorry, you're not getting it. Companies are just as "forced" to employ people as they are forced to do research.

          Companies are forced to employ people because someone as to do the grunt work, and the CEO ain't doing it.

          And what other model is any different? Short term thinkers circularly act the same no matter the economic model. What changes is that they get rewarded in some systems. That's happening in the present government nanny research models. Government does the research hence greatly reduced need for businesses to pay for their own research.

          And I propose that your economic paradigm encourages and rewards short-term thinkers while penalizing long-term thinkers. State-funded research is a hack around an economic policy that is inherently technologically stagnant.

          And government funding is one of the big reasons for that. It's hard to enter a market when the established players have government funding to lower the risk of their high cost research and the indie does not.

          The barrier of entry is all the expensive and hard to manufacture specialist equipment. A microbiology lab costs more than your typical biology nerd can casually spend.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:47AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:47AM (#638007) Journal

            Companies are forced to employ people because someone as to do the grunt work, and the CEO ain't doing it.

            And as I already pointed out, that can be done with a machine, in a developing world country, or not at all.

            And I propose that your economic paradigm encourages and rewards short-term thinkers while penalizing long-term thinkers. State-funded research is a hack around an economic policy that is inherently technologically stagnant.

            The government nanny is not my economic paradigm. We also know that low government interference in US science from the period between the US Civil War and the start of the Second World War (the "Gilded Age") resulted in the transformation of the US from backwater colony to budding superpower with a world class scientific system. There was plenty of private-side investment in science, including pure science, during that period. So history doesn't fit your narrative.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:56AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @06:56AM (#638115)

          Government does the research hence greatly reduced need for businesses to pay for their own research.

          No. Government funded research is not focused on revenue projections in the next 10 quarters. It's called basic research. What companies fund is applied science. You need the first to get the 2nd. Without someone funding basic research, you are stuck with no building blocks for your applied science funded by companies.

          Who the fuck would fund CERN if not governments? Who would fund ITER? Or things like Hubble??? There is no application for any of these for decades. Decisions makers today will be long dead before any applied science can be derived from this stuff.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:52PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:52PM (#638286) Journal

            Government funded research is not focused on revenue projections in the next 10 quarters.

            It's the next election cycle instead.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:35PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:35PM (#637921)

      Isn't it strange how experts in biology are all of a sudden in favor of a monoculture? I mean this post is literally about celebrating that monoculture. Then all the posts here (except my single one on NIH monopoly) are about irrelevant political crap rather than looking at this scientifically (current thought would frame this as a problem). Is this a tech/science site or political site?

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:02AM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:02AM (#637982) Journal

        about irrelevant political crap

        So for example, take the NIH's ability to pick winners and losers. That's conducive to the formation of the monoculture you spoke of. Similarly, socializing losses so that your medical research field can be taken over by short term thinkers is conducive to the formation of a monoculture. We are speaking of aspects of the same thing, but with different language.

        Don't discount arguments that make your point for you.

        Isn't it strange how experts in biology are all of a sudden in favor of a monoculture?

        It's not strange. These advocates would be losers in any sort of diverse, competitive research ecosystem. The people with the greatest self-interest in maintaining the status quo are the greatest defenders.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @02:58AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @02:58AM (#638042)

          NIH isn't conducive to the monoculture, it is the monoculture. Almost all funding for biomed projects flows through that organization.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:33PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:33PM (#637890)

    We really need something new comparable to NIH in funding. They are too big and too dug into decades of bad stats and ir/un-reproducible findings. Real progress won't be made on problems like cancer, Alzheimer's, and stroke until there is a place for researchers to start afresh. NIH as an institution simply cannot admit how wrong some of the current approaches are.

    Of course the newer solution will incorporate the good stuff like SEER and pubmed, the key is to be independent of the past interpretations of the data and to collect new data that can supplement the mostly cherry picked stuff we have now.

    As to using FDA approval as a measure of "success", what kind of circular logic is that? FDA approval is about commerce, who is allowed to make money off this or that... FDA approval doesn't mean a drug works as advertised, and lack of approval doesn't mean it fails to either.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:50PM (#637929)

      Actually it wouldnt surprise me if lack of any NIH funded research on a topic would preempt FDA approval...

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:53AM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:53AM (#638080) Journal

      We really need something new comparable to NIH in funding.

      The illusion (or delusion) of a new start: because if the old is somehow flawed (especially when unbearable flawed), anything new is necessarily going to be better.

      Reality check: most of the time, the new is going to be broken as well - perhaps somehow differently broken.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @12:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @12:45PM (#638207)

        NIH will be like the catholic church is today. It will still exist and have a bunch of money and followers, but it's activities will not be considered to be primary.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:46PM (13 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:46PM (#637895) Journal

    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.

    Might as well blame NASA for supporting the ability of SpaceX to profit off of commercial space travel. Come to think of it, that argument holds more water than those around who are saying that the drug companies just fed off the public NIH trough.

    And at the end of the day, I care about knowing which drugs to take if I have, say, strep throat, pneumonia, or (name any condition), and care a lot less about if a pool of government research or private pharma provided that answer. (Well, no, I think pouring public research money has a lot better chance at giving neutral and objective information about the condition which the drug treats. So I'll actively support the NIH instead of be apathetic.)

    --
    This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @09:55PM (#637903)

      If NIH funds are spent badly on stupid research, then guess what? The NIH still gets money, because the NIH's income is by decree, not by voluntary trade.

      Hell, if the NIH does poorly, it might even get more money, because surely the problem was that there weren't enough resources in the first place, amirite?

      Money represents the power to allocate resources. It makes no sense to de-couple resource allocation from hard-to-manipulate signals about what society needs and wants (e.g., from prices in the market); the fantasies of a bureaucrat are not a good foundation for allocating resources.

      If a business lies about the quality of its research, then it's just a matter of time (perhaps longer than anyone would like) before the truth comes out, because the money will dry up if promises cannot be delivered. The NIH doesn't suffer from this reality, and that makes the NIH dangerous.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:01PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:01PM (#637907)

      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)

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:11PM (#637909) Journal

        Maybe the NIH squandered resources on bad projects...

        That might hold water if the point of the NIH research was to create drugs. It was not. So that's enough about that.

        Money represents the power to allocate resources. It makes no sense to de-couple resource allocation from hard-to-manipulate signals about what society needs and wants (e.g., from prices in the market); the fantasies of a bureaucrat are not a good foundation for allocating resources.

        Limiting medical research to only the most profitable conditions is equally not a good foundation for allocation public health resources.

        If a business lies about the quality of its research, then it's just a matter of time (perhaps longer than anyone would like) before the truth comes out, because the money will dry up if promises cannot be delivered. The NIH doesn't suffer from this reality, and that makes the NIH dangerous.

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:25PM (#637913)
          • 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)

            by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday February 16 2018, @03:35PM (#638836) Journal

            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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:30AM (#639152) Journal

              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?

              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)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 15 2018, @02:51AM (#638037) Journal

          Maybe the NIH squandered resources on bad projects...

          That might hold water if the point of the NIH research was to create drugs. It was not. So that's enough about that.

          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)

            by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday February 16 2018, @04:03PM (#638859) Journal

            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)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:46AM (#639158) Journal

              If it were squandering funds it would be squandering funds, yes. But that's something I'm not addressing at all.

              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.

              It's easier to note that the "bad projects" weren't aimed at drug creation therefore the argument is invalid

              "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

                by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @10:06PM (#640885) Journal

                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.

                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.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:57AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @04:57AM (#638081)

      I care about knowing which drugs to take if I have, say, ... or (name any condition)

      Challenge accepted.
      Condition: being rolled over by a 10 tons+ roller used in roadworks. How much you'd care about the drugs then?

      (grin)

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:02AM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:02AM (#638116) Journal

      When they are given exclusive access to government research, then it is right change the system. It's not clear to be that the article asserts this.

      OTOH, the drug release model in the US is horribly broken. I don't have a good way to fix it, but it's horribly broken. The companies that sell the drugs are the ones that validate whether the drugs work and are safe. This is an open invitation to corruption. They're allowed to advertise fraudulent promises without penalty. They suppress results that don't show the results they want. They....

      Well, it's just horribly broken. The testing and review of drugs should be totally independent of those who are going to profit by selling them. Government research should be available to all at the same price. So should other research paid for by the government.

      OTOH, what incentive would an independent group have to go through the long testing protocols? If the potential vendor is paying them, then they won't be independent very long. So it's easy to see that it's broken, but a good way to fix it isn't clear. (And I didn't mention half the problems, but every fix I've thought of seems to have problems just as bad.)

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by DutchUncle on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:24PM (9 children)

    by DutchUncle (5370) on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:24PM (#637912)

    All the libertarians immediately point out "socialize the losses, privatize the profits", and complain that this means nothing should be socialized. Well, how about going the other way: Make sure that the government-funded research, whether through the NIH or any funded university, gets a piece of the action on the profit side. Those are the only people you can trust to plow the money back into more research, instead of just handing it out as stock options to the CEO and dividends to the stock market.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:32PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:32PM (#637917)

      A redundant comment requires a redundant reply. From here [soylentnews.org]:

      If you socialize the losses, that's theft.

      If you socialize the profits, that's theft.

      The problem is socializing; the problem is socialism; socialism is theft in every case.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:20AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:20AM (#637990)

        How is it theft, moron?

        If the funder of the research retains rights to the fruits of that research and then licenses those rights for a profit, that's classic capitalism.

        So. If the NIH (and by extension, the people of the US) funds the research that's critical to the development of new drugs, how is it theft to retain and license rights to the research?

        Contrariwise, if the NIH (and by extension, the people of the US) funds the research that's critical to the development of new drugs, and gives away the fruits of that research to corporations that then monetize that research and charge exorbitant amounts of money for the drugs, with the bulk of their expenditures being marketing, not research, that's theft.

        Do you get it now? Or is your head stuck too far up your ass to understand anything?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @02:00AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @02:00AM (#638015)

          As already explained elsewhere in these comments, the theft occurs as taxation.

          The NIH gets to decree its income.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:46AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:46AM (#638061)

            Except of course, that taxation is not theft.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:53AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:53AM (#638012)

      A redundant comment requires a redundant reply. From here [soylentnews.org] [soylentnews.org]:

      If you socialize the losses, that's theft.

      If you socialize the profits, that's theft.

      The problem is socializing; the problem is socialism; socialism is theft in every case.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:02AM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 15 2018, @03:02AM (#638045) Journal

      Make sure that the government-funded research, whether through the NIH or any funded university, gets a piece of the action on the profit side.

      I'm quite sure the big companies would be able to insure that the piece of action were smaller.

      Those are the only people you can trust to plow the money back into more research, instead of just handing it out as stock options to the CEO and dividends to the stock market.

      And your reason for "trusting" them is? There's just so many problems with the scheme on a large scale. It creates a conflict of interest. A government is no less susceptible to greed and lust for power than a business is. It creates a bogus pretext on all future revenue. Your project used a little research from some ancient government grant, therefore government is entitled to profit-sharing. And ultimately, government backed research just isn't that valuable in itself, else those businesses wouldn't be so eager to share the costs.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:01AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:01AM (#638083)

        A government is no less susceptible to greed and lust for power than a business is.

        Except that (theoretically), a govt is something over which the people has some amount of control.

        By contrast, only the capital can exercise control over a corporation.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:35AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 15 2018, @07:35AM (#638127) Journal

          Except that (theoretically), a govt is something over which the people has some amount of control.

          By that same "theory", one wouldn't need to control a business. One of the points of a business is to encapsulate some function of a society without everyone else needing to care about what goes on inside. Instead of a government that you hope won't go out of control, you get a business whose activities you don't care about, unless they start harming others.

          And once you get to the situation where governments and businesses are harming others, it's quite obvious that the government is far harder to control than the business. The latter can be controlled via government regulation, courts, boycotts and strikes, seizure or destruction of assets, etc. But to control the government really only works when you can get enough people to support your attempt. Government regulation of itself is an exercise in futility. Courts often don't have jurisdiction over the activities of a government. Boycotts and strikes can have some modest effect, if the government needs participation badly enough and doesn't have enough power to crack down instead. And governments are notorious for being able to tolerate a massive amount of destruction of assets.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @05:03PM (#638296)

      A redundant comment requires a redundant reply. From here [soylentnews.org]:

      If you socialize the losses, that's theft.

      If you socialize the profits, that's theft.

      The problem is socializing; the problem is socialism; socialism is theft in every case.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:34PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:34PM (#637920)

    VIM (Violently Imposed Monopoly) guy is back. Nice to have you here again. When did you get out?

    It's all just "Gimme Free Stuff!" Gimme, gimme, gimme.

    One entity funds the basic research and another demands the fruits (patents and monetization) of that research. Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!

    It seems to me that's a very weak property rights model, one where clearly defined contracts should ensure that those who invest the capital (in this case, the NIH, and by extension, their shareholders) are the owners of such fruits. But these commie bastards just scream Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! I want free stuff! Disgusting.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @10:59PM (#637932)

      Seems to coincide nicely with my pointing out that VIM guy was gone but VLM was back shitposting about illegal immigrants "invading" the US.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 14 2018, @11:01PM (#637933)

      The NIH can't be allowed to have an income by decree (i.e., through taxation), otherwise that stronger model of property rights will be built atop a very weak model.

      Maybe there is a compromise, hybrid system for the meantime.

      The NIH could receive tax-based funding for this year that is tied strictly to the profitable outcome of funding from previous years; make the federal government just one of the "shareholders", but whose decision to invest more or divest more is based on an objective calculation of past performance and constrain Congressional appropriation to fiddling with this calculation. The rest of the market can, of course, invest or divest how it sees fit.

  • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday February 15 2018, @12:13AM (2 children)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Thursday February 15 2018, @12:13AM (#637967) Homepage Journal

    NIH is Not Invented Here, why are they inventing? Going to look into this!!

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @01:09AM (#637985)

      You're thinking of No Such Agency, which doesn't exist, unless you try to drive in through the "out" driveway.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @02:44AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 15 2018, @02:44AM (#638034)

      NIH (Not Invented Here) is a catch phrase used to chastise engineers from re-inventing things that they themselves didn't invent in the first place. Classic examples are internal projects to replace perfectly functional code libraries simply because the current guard didn't understand how the code worked.

(1)