• xenspidey@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Depends on how much time was spent on R&D. You have to recover those costs. I know everyone wants everything for free but it takes a fuck ton of man hours and tons of investments to get to this point. You can’t just give it away unfortunately.

    • I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Did they pay for their own R&D? Usually that get socialized and then the profits are privatized, it’s the American Way.

      • Cannonhead2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I like to shit on big pharma as much as the next guy, but in this case, yes they do. Developing new drugs is a ludicrously risky and expensive venture, typically costing billions of dollars. Sometimes it may be subsidized somewhat, sure, but the vast majority of it is coming out of pocket for these companies.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      You actually can. The simplest way is to literally just give the research away and charge a fair price for the medicine. That’s allowed.

      The slightly more capitalist way would be to sell the rights to the government to recoup costs.

      The slightly less capitalist way is for the government to notify you that you don’t own it anymore because of the public good.

      This is also ignoring exactly how much the public already funds the basic research that goes into pharmaceuticals, which is quite a bit more than you might expect, so the argument of what’s even “fair” is less clearly in favor of the company than you might expect.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        There’s a tricky balance.

        For every endeavor that could recoup its costs in a fairly reasonable way, there are several other attempts that end in failure.

        If you know that best case your project can be modestly better than break even, but it will most likely completely fail, would you invest in it?

        I could respect an argument for outright socializing pharmaceutical efforts and rolling the needs into taxes and cutting out the capitalist angle entirely, but so long as you rely on capitalist funding model in any significant amount, then you have to allow for some incentive. When the research is pretty much fully funded by public funds, that funding should come with strings attached, but here it seems the lead up was largely in capitalist territory.