Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Mike But Slightly Frosty ❄️⛄

@darnell @rbreich It's a common situation in medical research. It's often done by universities, with at least partial government grants. But the final product patents are given to the companies managing the research, even if they didn't provide the majority funding, or the people or expertise.

3 comments
Darnell Clayton :verified:

@mikey @rbreich If that is the case, why does the government not provide stipulations about future pricing as a condition of receiving the grants‽

Then again, I think the same thing plays out in other industries as well (green technology, artificial intelligence, energy technology, space technology, etcetera).

Mike But Slightly Frosty ❄️⛄

@darnell @rbreich These are very good questions, and the answers usually boil down to the people with the money are the ones with the access and so the ones with the voices. Government wants research for public good. When they ask what needs to happen next, the ones with the seats at the table are often the pharma execs who say "if you don't let us rake in money we'll have to stop doing this" and so they let them have it.

Raven Onthill

@mikey @darnell @rbreich "why does the government not provide stipulations about future pricing as a condition of receiving the grants‽ "

Because for decades now, the pharmaceutical industry has owned Congress. That is also why Medicare does not negotiate drug prices. (One could say a lot more, but that is the basic reason.)

Go Up