So now that Mr. Bush has vetoed the stem cell bill, I have a question

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

i don't mind paying for live-saving drugs. without antibiotics, we would have had a very small chance of being here

I don't mind paying for them either. But wouldn't it be better to invest our money into these companies via stock and get a return on it instead of just pay in taxes and get nothing?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I don't mind paying for them either. But wouldn't it be better to invest our money into these companies via stock and get a return on it instead of just pay in taxes and get nothing?

can't we do that too?

please don't say we get nothing, because i think society gets a lot back. returns doesn't necessarily mean money.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

can't we do that too?

please don't say we get nothing, because i think society gets a lot back. returns doesn't necessarily mean money.

Again, if the knowledge was public domain, I would agree, but as far as I know, it's not, right?

I may be wrong here

[DosEquis]

We still pay for it twice. They develop it for significantly less money, or damn near free, because of us, and then they sell it for huge profits. Its a double wammy.

edit: I am definitely conservative when it comes to giving money out to business like drug and oil companies They are the most profitable by far simply because they exploit our need. I understand supply/demand and business is there to make money.... but they need to do it with some moral integrity.

[ballz2wallz]

hmm...perhaps there's a misconception here. federal funding for scientific research is not for private companies (for the most part) but instead for research institutions in the academic setting. private companies have the option applying for SMALL grants to start up their companies, but pfizer and novartis are not out there getting mutimillion dollar federal grants.

to answer your 'public knowledge' question thewise1, the federal money (our taxes) that goes towards research in the academic setting (most of it does) IS public knowledge. most academics publish their work in relevant journals.

we are not paying for lifesaving drugs 'twice' as much basic research is done in the academic setting (some in private, but on their own bill) and then the companies often use that information on a larger scale. obviously it's more complicated but nonetheless, you're not really 'paying for it twice'

cliffs: this federal funding he's banned is primarily for academic research, and not for big pharma

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

hmm...perhaps there's a misconception here. federal funding for scientific research is not for private companies (for the most part) but instead for research institutions in the academic setting. private companies have the option applying for SMALL grants to start up their companies, but pfizer and novartis are not out there getting mutimillion dollar federal grants.

to answer your 'public knowledge' question thewise1, the federal money (our taxes) that goes towards research in the academic setting (most of it does) IS public knowledge. most academics publish their work in relevant journals.

we are not paying for lifesaving drugs 'twice' as much basic research is done in the academic setting (some in private, but on their own bill) and then the companies often use that information on a larger scale. obviously it's more complicated but nonetheless, you're not really 'paying for it twice'

cliffs: this federal funding he's banned is primarily for academic research, and not for big pharma

So how do companies get a license to start creating a specific drug?

I assume there is a patent process of some kind on these things, right?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thewise1

So how do companies get a license to start creating a specific drug?

I assume there is a patent process of some kind on these things, right?

companies get a license by a number of ways. the first and most obvious is to create the technology themselves. that's done on their own buck. they file the patent, etc. a second way is to purchase the rights/technology license from the owner of the patent. this can be either from an academic researcher or someone else. the third, and most preferred for an academic institution, is for the professor to start the company himself with his own patent. patents filed through an academic institution are typically 'owned' by the institution as well (they provide backbone, clout, leverage for anyone that might want to take the prof to court) so they work out some deal with the prof. i'm sure there are other ways but those are a few off the top of my head.


it's interesting you ask, cause i'm kind of involved with this stuff right now and in the process of learning about all this mess.

[Comrade Ramius]

Originally Posted by motivez

Do you support any federal funding of scientific research?

I think that is most definitely "promoting the general welfare" or whatever the exact language is

It's one thing to not support federal funding of fringe science, which includes a lot of the bogus weaponry science that the Pentagon pours money into.

But when you have mainstream science that shows enormous potential, and most of the country supports it, you as the President have an obligation to "promote the general welfare."

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

companies get a license by a number of ways. the first and most obvious is to create the technology themselves. that's done on their own buck. they file the patent, etc. a second way is to purchase the rights/technology license from the owner of the patent. this can be either from an academic researcher or someone else. the third, and most preferred for an academic institution, is for the professor to start the company himself with his own patent. patents filed through an academic institution are typically 'owned' by the institution as well (they provide backbone, clout, leverage for anyone that might want to take the prof to court) so they work out some deal with the prof. i'm sure there are other ways but those are a few off the top of my head.


it's interesting you ask, cause i'm kind of involved with this stuff right now and in the process of learning about all this mess.

So basically, licensing rights get purchased from the guy(s) who invented the drug, therefore they are making money off of something that we funded their research on.

That's what bothers me, no offense to your discipline/science (I don't know what you guys really call it, sorry).

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Comrade Ramius

But when you have mainstream science that shows enormous potential, and most of the country supports it, you as the President have an obligation to "promote the general welfare."

i would still consider embryonic stem cell research 'fringe science' considering the lack of knowledge of even adult stem cells. there is still so much to be learned from available tissues and adult stem cells that rushing ahead to embryonic stem cell research (VERY controversial to say the least) is not necessary. haste makes waste, and i think that's the idea behind this. not to mention he hasn't completely banned this research. if for some reason embryonic stem cell research seem to show 600 times more potential than anything else (exaggerated number) then i'm sure things will change. but at this time i don't think enough is known to go ahead with something so conterversial. as president he still has to take other things into consideration, like potential ramifications on the country outside of science.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thewise1

So basically, licensing rights get purchased from the guy(s) who invented the drug, therefore they are making money off of something that we funded their research on.

That's what bothers me, no offense to your discipline/science (I don't know what you guys really call it, sorry).

in an academic institution, the prof that develops a patent typically only gets about 1/3 of anything that is made off the technology. and it's often not very much

if people only knew how hard it was for profs to 'make it big' or 'get rich' then i don't think you'd be so criticial.

[Comrade Ramius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

i would still consider embryonic stem cell research 'fringe science' considering the lack of knowledge of even adult stem cells. there is still so much to be learned from available tissues and adult stem cells that rushing ahead to embryonic stem cell research (VERY controversial to say the least) is not necessary. haste makes waste, and i think that's the idea behind this. not to mention he hasn't completely banned this research. if for some reason embryonic stem cell research seem to show 600 times more potential than anything else (exaggerated number) then i'm sure things will change. but at this time i don't think enough is known to go ahead with something so conterversial. as president he still has to take other things into consideration, like potential ramifications on the country outside of science.

That's fine, but as far as him changing his mind, i doubt that happening. With the words he uses to condemn stem cell research and getting new lines of stem cells, even if it were to be shown to have 600 times more potential than anything else, I doubt he would go back on his previous rhetoric. I guess it's a wait-and-see thing, though.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

in an academic institution, the prof that develops a patent typically only gets about 1/3 of anything that is made off the technology. and it's often not very much

if people only knew how hard it was for profs to 'make it big' or 'get rich' then i don't think you'd be so criticial.

The net effect here, regardless of whether or not the professor gets rich, is that he develops the product, sells the license to create it, and then a company makes money off a taxpayer investment.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thewise1

The net effect here, regardless of whether or not the professor gets rich, is that he develops the product, sells the license to create it, and then a company makes money off a taxpayer investment.

welll...there's obviously a lot more invested in it than that. see, the patent itself doesn't go straight to market. there are probably 10 yrs of research still left even after the technology is purchased. those pharma companies spend millions, if not billions, into a product.

let's assume the company begins research on a potential drug therapy they just purchased or received a patent on. the patent is for what, 17 yrs? they are likely to do research, including beginning stages (academic technology must be sufficiently scaled up in larger amounts...often times drastic changes need to be made to do this, which requires more research) as well as clinical trials. this can sometimes, and often take up to 15 yrs. assuming it gets FDA approved, that leaves TWO YEARS left for them make their money back before their patent runs out and the generics come in. now sometimes the company can alter a product enough to extend or get another patent on it, but that's not always the case. now also assume that there are a number of other products with patents that make it to phase 3 clinical trials that DON'T get FDA approved, and you have millions (per product) spent on a patent that will never make money. so essentially what happens is that for any number of possible therapeutics that go to market and make money for the pharma company, they are paying not only for the research on that specific drug, but for the other that also fail.

so it's not quite as simple as you make it seem.

[Thorgrim]

the genome project would have been impossible without government funding...some things are simply too long term

just like spaceflight will eventually be commercialized, you really think the free market would have ever produced NASA?

Sometimes only the government can step up

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the genome project would have been impossible without government funding...some things are simply too long term

just like spaceflight will eventually be commercialized, you really think the free market would have ever produced NASA?

Sometimes only the government can step up

I'm well aware of your viewpoint here

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

the genome project would have been impossible without government funding...some things are simply too long term

just like spaceflight will eventually be commercialized, you really think the free market would have ever produced NASA?

Sometimes only the government can step up

The genome project was funded mostly privately worldwide. That's why it finished so far ahead of original schedule. It started as an education thing in colleges, then once pharma businesses found out how the information could be used, they dumped money into it.

Spaceflight allowed the knowledge for how to deploy satellites, which has certainly become more commercial than research oriented. No one would have ever set foot on the moon and we certainly wouldn't be sending up Mars Rovers, but there would still be some types of space flight without NASA.

So, for the most part, I think leaving those things up to industry would have resulted in either the same thing or a result that is just as useful to my day-to-day life as what we have now is.

[thomez]

Funding, funding everywhere
it's all on plastic but we don't care

[motivez]

I think the question of funding really relies on profit to be made.

Would private funding rather search for a cure to a disease, or something that would allow people to live with it as long as they continue purchasing their product for the rest of their life?

[thomez]

It could equally be said that they would want cures or treatments to keep you from dying.

Dead = no customer