----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad DeLong" <jbdelong at uclink.berkeley.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 1:46 PM Subject: Re: Brazil gets 40% cut on AIDS drugs
> >Should we tax pharmaceutical companies? Should we subsidize them by
> >doing most of the research and then handing over the property
rights
> >after members of Congress take campaign contributions?
> >
> >Ian
>
>
> It seems pretty clear to me that on net we should be subsidizing
> pharmaceuticals. There are some amazing drugs out there. The NIH is
> very, very good at doing basic research. But there is no reason to
> think that a publicly-funded bureaucracy is particularly good at the
> process of drug development.
>
> How to subsidize pharmaceuticals is a genuinely hard question...
>
>
> Brad DeLong
=============
How are funding inputs relevant to organizing research, experiment and
clinical trials? What about Taxol and Citrical? It would seem if we
give scientists good management skills and rigorous ethical guidelines
for safety etc. the public-private distinction would slowly wither
away. After all, they're coming from educational institutions that are
themselves committed to doing good science because the social costs of
bad science and engineering is enormous. This is not to say we don't
have the best science and plenty of papers have been written about how
poorly science as a public good is being funded. It is a *very* tough
issue, I agree, but the pharma companies aren't keeping their end of
the current 'bargain' and the republicrats have sucked on science
policy and science education for over 20 years.
Ian