Federal Research Center Will Help Develop Medicines.

[elleng]

The Obama administration has become so concerned about the slowing pace of new drugs coming out of the pharmaceutical industry that officials have decided to start a billion-dollar government drug development center to help create medicines. . .

Whether the government can succeed where private industry has failed is uncertain, officials acknowledge, but they say doing nothing is not an option. The health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, sent a letter to Congress on Jan. 14 outlining the plan to open the new drug center by October — an unusually rapid turnaround for an idea first released with little fanfare in December.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/health/policy/23drug.html?hp

[Donnachaidh]

1. so the taxpayer is going to pay to develop drugs the pharma companies will profit from

Hear that great big sucking sound? That's MORE corporate subsidies for companies that DON'T need them.

Change we can believe in? Uhh NO.

[elleng]

2. Uhhh no. . .

In this case the center will do as much research as it needs to do so that it can attract drug company investment.

That means that in some cases, the center will use one of the institutes’ four new robotic screeners to find chemicals that affect enzymes and might lead to the development of a drug or a cure. In other cases, the center may need to not only discover the right chemicals but also perform animal tests to ensure that they are safe and even start human trials to see if they work. All of that has traditionally been done by drug companies, not the government.

“None of this is intended to be competitive with the private sector,” Dr. Collins said. “The hope would be that any project that reaches the point of commercial appeal would be moved out of the academic support line and into the private sector.”

[Donnachaidh]

3. "moved out of the academic support line and into the private sector."

What part of this does NOT mean we do the heavy lifting (the initial research), bear the costs of that -- and then hand it off to a drug company that thinks they can market it?

YES it is a *subsidy*. R&D is a cost for pharmaceutical companies. We're offering to take that cost off their hands. WE meaning the taxpayers.

[elleng]

4. We're kick-starting something we want/need them to do.

[Donnachaidh]

6. and we're FINANCING it!

Kickstarting my ass -- we're subsidizing corporations who make TRILLIONS on drugs already, who will BENEFIT from OUR taxpayer-funded research.

Please don't pee up my back and tell me it's raining. This cannot be spun as a GOOD thing. NOT when the future profits will go to finance CEO homes and bonuses.

[elleng]

7. It IS a good thing, like it or not; sorry.

Not peeing. They don't want to do it, we want it to be done, we encourage them to get into it in future. W/out initial govt financing, won't be done.

[DCKit]

5. Better to nationalize a couple drug companies and move some academics into key positions.

Allow THEM to build them up and reinvest the proceeds into the business and provide scholarships for students.