7

6 comments

[–] Justintoxicated 1 points (+1|-0)

Most of the research takes place on university campuses with university paid for equipment.

Most "published" research takes place in public institutions on public equipment however pharma companies generally do private research in private facilities that they do not publish publicly because it is considered a trade secret (in fact most pharma companies only do research, they never produce a drug that goes to market). Also a great deal of the funding grants received by universities for specific research is funded by private companies interested in exploring an area but not so interested they would put their own people on it (also this helps with recruiting talent, if you have some college kids trained and already doing your work for free when they graduate you have someone primed to work for you)

For most pharma the funding comes from venture capital and contracts with larger established pharma companies (Roche, GSK, Novartis, etc..). Generally a group of industry professionals interested in a specific area will come together and form a start up that is backed by a VC/Pharma which usually also allows them to use their equipment. If the start up fails it stays off the funding company's balance sheet, if it succeeds generally the funding pharma has a contract in place that may let them market the drug or gain licensing fees. It's a very cannibalistic landscape of buyouts and spin outs.

I agree that the American medical system is badly twisted and there a definitely some very sketchy pharma companies out there (generally the ones that make the news) but overall the intention of most of these companies is to cure/treat/prevent illness and then move on to something new.

overall the intention of most of these companies is to cure/treat/prevent illness and then move on to something new.

I'm not sure I would agree with that part.
I believe the intent of the company is to generate profit. It's method is to cure/treat illness, not their goal.
If their goal was to help people, reduced prices would be available to poor markets, without the use of legal or contractual force to compel them.

That is why I believe the for-profit model fails when applied to human health care. Human health is not an area that we are willing to accept 'efficiency'. It is efficient to let poor/old/disabled people die. There is no profit to be had in saving them, only further financial burden. So expecting a for profit mechanism to work well would be optimistic.