Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's not the only way to fund drug development. For example, there was a bill in Congress a couple years ago to tax health insurance companies for development of patent-free drugs, using an X-Prize style system so it wouldn't be the government picking which research to fund.

The insurance companies get to spend less paying for treatment, and using the tax system gets around the public goods problem which prevents insurers from doing this voluntarily.



The insurance companies get to spend less paying for treatment, and using the tax system gets around the public goods problem which prevents insurers from doing this voluntarily.

That makes no sense. If you put a limit on potential returns by instituting a fixed "X-prize", why would companies continue to invest in R&D? Wouldn't they just pick the cheapest to develop drugs in order to maximize their return?


Who picks the research 'prizes'? Nominating prizes could be politicized, leading to government picking which research to fund.


Medical research should really, really not be publicly funded. Say goodbye to anything remotely controversial. From life extension, to genetic engineering, to abortion and birth control, etc.


I think this is a great point. Not sure why it's getting so many downvotes. Though I might quibble that medical research should not be exclusively government funded, or that it should not depend on government money. I'm OK with the government steering some extra money to the projects that need it (sometimes good social policy and private economic incentives don't align the way you'd like), but I agree a system where research is totally dependent on government money could be very bad.


The NIH and its $30 billion a year in funding seem to be doing a fairly decent job.

http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm

Funding report by disease/research area:

http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx

Note: Over a billion dollars a year is spent on stem cell research.


The bill didn't outlaw pharmaceutical patents, it just provided an alternate funding mechanism that would produce drugs without patents. Any area the government wasn't funding would be the same as it is now.

We should at least publicly-fund antibiotics research, given that the current system is almost completely failing on that front.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: