5 ms·

Major pharma companies are all constantly competing, and very often are duplicating work because they are not sharing major experimental results. The way it fee

by biols 5y ago

Major pharma companies are all constantly competing, and very often are duplicating work because they are not sharing major experimental results. The way it feels is that there's already "too many people" working in certain areas (e.g. in cancer), while almost no attention is paid to these rare diseases. I think that more people studying rare diseases would result in a net gain of lives saved; I don't think it's as zero-sum as "either 1 person's life is saved or 10 are" in this instance. Research also cross pollinates across disease areas. For example, understanding altered metabolism in cancer can yield insights for non-oncological metabolic disorders. Oftentimes, though, nobody's working on translating that work out of a cancer model, because the financial incentives are not there.

WalterBright 5y ago
On the other hand, competition has given us what, 6 covid vaccines of varying effectiveness, and in record time. What if only the least effective one was developed, and took 18 months? The 1962 FDA effectiveness mandates have had the side effect of increasing drug development costs enormously, and that shuts down development of treatments for rare disorders.
- biols 5y ago
  I think the idea would have been that Pfizer and Moderna could have pooled resources and made a single optimal vaccine faster, though I'll admit I'm not sure it could have happened any faster than it did from my perspective. The Kefauver Harris Amendment you refer to was immensely important towards the development of safe and efficacious drugs -- I do not see the connection between that act and rare disease therapeutic development. In fact, drugs that only offer marginal improvements in quality of life for rare genetic disease patients are often fast-tracked by the FDA. Requiring that a drug _works_ shouldn't inhibit drug development. Otherwise, we end up with tragedies like what happened with the use of thalidomide, which prompted this amendment in the first place.
  - csee 5y ago
    Competition is an incredible driver of outcomes, e.g. moon landing. It's also better from a risk perspective since it decorrelates efforts and we only need 1 to succeed. It also allows evolution to operate, where the incompetent and broken and corrupt die off and the productive are given more resources, which tends to lead to overall improvement. Sure, competition also creates waste, which is your main point here, but don't discount the upsides. Competition has proven itself in the real world. Having only one monolithic vaccine maker (whether for-profit, non-profit, or government) would be a very bad thing. What would happen if it falls to corrupt leadership, as one of many examples of how this could go wrong? There is no mechanism to escape badness here, because we only have 1 of them.
    - Coding_Cat 5y ago
      It is possible to maintain the benefits of competition without the level of duplication and profit motives that we struggle with today. Large scale collaborative scientific endavours like CERN show us that it is possible to both publically share knowledge and still explore multiple avenues and competing designs. There's also no financial profit motive and while CERN receives a lot of public funding, it has to pump that funding back into the economies of the funding countries so it serves more like a high-tech industry stimulus and technological incubator. I see no reason why a similar aproach for the development of (specific) therapeutics could not work.
      - csee 5y ago
        I agree that it's possible to preserve many of the benefits of competition under a more centralized and explicitly cooperative structure. You see this sometimes within large for-profit companies that have competing products, which are siloed from each other in the workplace. This works fine, because there is still a profit motive at work and the identical evolutionary forces that will kill a particular silo if it's underperforming, and the same competitive pressure to perform. Much larger cooperative structures are less proven to work and are more hypothetical, though, even if CERN is an example of such a structure working. The risk, mainly, is that there isn't a good corrective mechanism if the whole thing becomes corrupted or rotten from the top. The other risk is that the cooperation is actually detrimental to progress because it correlates outcomes via group think. Some decorrelation is nice. I am happy that Musk et al. weren't forced to become cogs at NASA, and could explore their own ideas, which was easier to achieve by then being explicitly separate entities (even if they were reliant on contracts).
- User23 5y ago
  I’m not sure that history is going to be kind to Trump’s shortcutting[1] regulatory approval on the current vaccines. [1] “Operation Warp Speed”
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I'm beyond puzzled. The multiple COVID vaccines weren't developed so quickly because of competition. They were developed by an unprecedented worldwide effort and government support.
sterlind 5y ago
I wonder if you could run a pharma company that buys IP for failed cancer treatments and runs small trials in rare diseases. you have the advantage of having passed Phase I/II usually, so you know it's decently safe, and oncology hits a lot of diverse targets. there are some examples, for instance enzastaurin being repurposed for vascular EDS, after washing out as an angiogenesis inhibitor for cancer. I don't know if it makes sense mechanistically, I sure hope it does.

by biols 5y ago

WalterBright 5y ago

On the other hand, competition has given us what, 6 covid vaccines of varying effectiveness, and in record time. What if only the least effective one was developed, and took 18 months? The 1962 FDA effectiveness mandates have had the side effect of increasing drug development costs enormously, and that shuts down development of treatments for rare disorders.

biols 5y ago
I think the idea would have been that Pfizer and Moderna could have pooled resources and made a single optimal vaccine faster, though I'll admit I'm not sure it could have happened any faster than it did from my perspective. The Kefauver Harris Amendment you refer to was immensely important towards the development of safe and efficacious drugs -- I do not see the connection between that act and rare disease therapeutic development. In fact, drugs that only offer marginal improvements in quality of life for rare genetic disease patients are often fast-tracked by the FDA. Requiring that a drug _works_ shouldn't inhibit drug development. Otherwise, we end up with tragedies like what happened with the use of thalidomide, which prompted this amendment in the first place.
- csee 5y ago
  Competition is an incredible driver of outcomes, e.g. moon landing. It's also better from a risk perspective since it decorrelates efforts and we only need 1 to succeed. It also allows evolution to operate, where the incompetent and broken and corrupt die off and the productive are given more resources, which tends to lead to overall improvement. Sure, competition also creates waste, which is your main point here, but don't discount the upsides. Competition has proven itself in the real world. Having only one monolithic vaccine maker (whether for-profit, non-profit, or government) would be a very bad thing. What would happen if it falls to corrupt leadership, as one of many examples of how this could go wrong? There is no mechanism to escape badness here, because we only have 1 of them.
  - Coding_Cat 5y ago
    It is possible to maintain the benefits of competition without the level of duplication and profit motives that we struggle with today. Large scale collaborative scientific endavours like CERN show us that it is possible to both publically share knowledge and still explore multiple avenues and competing designs. There's also no financial profit motive and while CERN receives a lot of public funding, it has to pump that funding back into the economies of the funding countries so it serves more like a high-tech industry stimulus and technological incubator. I see no reason why a similar aproach for the development of (specific) therapeutics could not work.
    - csee 5y ago
      I agree that it's possible to preserve many of the benefits of competition under a more centralized and explicitly cooperative structure. You see this sometimes within large for-profit companies that have competing products, which are siloed from each other in the workplace. This works fine, because there is still a profit motive at work and the identical evolutionary forces that will kill a particular silo if it's underperforming, and the same competitive pressure to perform. Much larger cooperative structures are less proven to work and are more hypothetical, though, even if CERN is an example of such a structure working. The risk, mainly, is that there isn't a good corrective mechanism if the whole thing becomes corrupted or rotten from the top. The other risk is that the cooperation is actually detrimental to progress because it correlates outcomes via group think. Some decorrelation is nice. I am happy that Musk et al. weren't forced to become cogs at NASA, and could explore their own ideas, which was easier to achieve by then being explicitly separate entities (even if they were reliant on contracts).
User23 5y ago
I’m not sure that history is going to be kind to Trump’s shortcutting[1] regulatory approval on the current vaccines. [1] “Operation Warp Speed”
HWR_14 5y ago
I'm beyond puzzled. The multiple COVID vaccines weren't developed so quickly because of competition. They were developed by an unprecedented worldwide effort and government support.

sterlind 5y ago

I wonder if you could run a pharma company that buys IP for failed cancer treatments and runs small trials in rare diseases. you have the advantage of having passed Phase I/II usually, so you know it's decently safe, and oncology hits a lot of diverse targets. there are some examples, for instance enzastaurin being repurposed for vascular EDS, after washing out as an angiogenesis inhibitor for cancer. I don't know if it makes sense mechanistically, I sure hope it does.