Quick question: not that it affects your argument, but do you have experience in academic/industrial research?
Reason I ask is not to ad-hominem you, just to see which arguments I should focus on.
Here are the basics though:
1. Compound discovery happens mostly in academic research labs prior to patenting. This is published in journals (paid, but "open source").
2. Wrt general scientific research, science has always been fine without patents: Einstein, Feynman and Co don't need financial incentive to do their best work, it's just what they do.
3. The role of pharmaceutical companies is fairly limited to clinical research, getting over regulatory hurdles and marketing. In a given year approx 100k potentially useful compounds will be discovered, but only a couple are approved by the FDA.
I do have experience in academic research. I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that pharmaceutical companies play a limited role in clinical research.
> 3. The role of pharmaceutical companies is fairly limited to clinical research, getting over regulatory hurdles and marketing. In a given year approx 100k potentially useful compounds will be discovered, but only a couple are approved by the FDA.
This glosses over almost the entire drug discovery process, which is a crucially important and nuanced process that yields new fundamental science. The positive scientific externalities of clinical trials are unambiguously a good thing.
You are correct that much compound discovery happens in academic settings (though it does happen commercially as well.)
Discovering the basic compound chemistry is just the first step. It must pass through a series of critical scientific assessments to see if the compound yields statistically significant desired biological effects.
This process is the experimental phase of drug discovery. It involves hundreds to thousands of different researchers, participants, institutions, and explicit organizational dynamics. The cost must be borne and there must be incentive to bear the cost. My entire argument is that the patent system enables this incentive structure.
> Wrt general scientific research, science has always been fine without patents: Einstein, Feynman and Co don't need financial incentive to do their best work, it's just what they do.
This point speaks to a more abstract point that is useful to consider, not only in the pharmaceutical context, but in the context of what makes science: science.
You are correct that fundamental theoretical science has always been fine without patents. The men and women who output some of our species' most beautiful interpretations of nature are rarely motivated by money. (I feel like that aspect of your argument was a bit of a non sequitur, I think all scientists are motivated by intrinsic knowledge, not money. I'm uncomfortable with my perception that you were implying that pharmaceutical scientists are somehow distinct from the examples you provided. Apologies if I misunderstood.)
The distinction between the pharmaceutical industry and the fundamental work of Enstein, Feynman et al. is that the drug discovery process involves two major expressions of scientific thought: theoretical and experimental. In this case, the basic compound discovery would be an expression of theoretical science (and experimental work), which must in turn be validated by more experimental science: the clinical trial phases.
In your example, it is true that Einstein, Feynman et al. did not need financial incentive to make immeasurable contributions to collective Good. They were doing priceless theoretical work, for what they are primarily known for. But (un)/fortunately, we need to do experimental science as well. Sadly, this cannot be done for free.
To continue with the physics analogy, The Higgs boson was theorized "without financial incentive" prior to its experimental validation. Of course, the experimental validation cost billions of dollars and the output of one of the greatest feats of human engineering: the Large Hadron Collider.
In this case, it was incredibly "expensive" (arguably, cost should be no object) to do this experimental validation. The cost was borne by government funding, ostensibly to increase the sum total of Knowledge.
Of course, resources are limited. The government cannot fund all basic research. We have aligned market machinery to incentivize pharmaceutical companies to fund the incredibly "expensive" cost of drug discovery experimental validation. For better or worse.
---------------------------
The premises to my argument:
- experimental validation (the lion's share of the drug discovery process) is necessary
- this process is expensive in terms of financial burden and opportunity cost
- despite our intrinsic desire to do all research, we must allocate our resources accordingly
- market actors in a (mostly) free market seek to maximize their utility
- a market actor (in a market with no property rights) presented with the choice of:
(a) spend X-Large sum -> manufacture + sell drug
or
(b) wait until other market actor spends X-Large sum -> manufacture + sell drug (at essentially zero input cost)
... can rationally wait to choose (b).
My argument:
- The pharmaceutical patent system provides the economic machinery necessary to incentivize private corporations to fund drug discovery experimental validation.
The point of mutual confusion or "the basics" as you put it:
The drug discovery process doesn't yield any meaningful scientific output, and is essentially an exercise in regulatory avoidance and marketing.
I disagree with "the basics" that you laid out.
I do want to say something explicitly: you've been very respectful and considerate and I really appreciate that. That's an increasingly rare thing on Hacker News.
I just came across it, and it makes a pretty damning indictment of my premise that patent incentives enable advancement in experimental science in the pharmaceutical industry. To be clear, pharmaceutical companies do play a crucial role in the drug discovery process, clinical trials do provide positive scientific externalities, but my assumption that patent protection is a necessary catalyst for risk taking appears to be incorrect (if you take seriously the very compelling case the authors make in the linked book chapters.) My argument is flawed. Elaborated in full here:
I still kind of like my part in this comment about distinguishing experimental science and theoretical science. Otherwise, I'm walking home with my tail between my legs.
> I do want to say something explicitly: you've been very respectful and considerate and I really appreciate that. That's an increasingly rare thing on Hacker News.
I hope that would've been expected :)
I think you make very valid points regarding the potential organizational benefits of IP for large scale endeavors. Actually one of the core arguments I make against my own anti-IP position is whether a large-scale hollywood production would be possible without copyright.
I.e. Much like Mozart or Beethoven who produced wonderful music without IP protection, I'm fairly sure a Spielberg or Scorsese would push the boundaries of their art whether or not they could earn hundreds of millions (but as long as they'd get enough to live and prosper). Same could be said of the great actors and musicians.
The best scientists & engineers are no different than the best artists or athletes. They do what they do, because this is what they are interested in.
I even think this is true for the greatest startup founders. Though they end up quite wealthy, I doubt this is what wakes them up, and what they dream about.
Certainly it would be true of pharmaceutical scientists as well.
The real question (which is analogous to what you brought up) is whether there would be sufficient resources to pay the required staff, marketers, and other non-creatives to put the greatest films together.
I don't know, frankly. I suspect at the high end, it would happen. My hunch is that the vast majority of money due only to IP goes to lawyers and operational business executives, not the creative geniuses.
I also suspect that without these massive giant corporations, and the onerous FDA regulations, we'd have hundreds of smaller, more innovative firms. Yes there would be more risk, but I think overall outcomes would be better because orders of magnitude more solutions would be brought to the marketplace and the best would rise to the top.
But I'd oppose IP regardless. My fundamental opposition to IP is not practical, but ideological. I just can't square it with the absolute freedom of speech that I believe in (and believe is more important than anything else). I do simultaneously believe that greater freedom bodes well for prosperity, but that's not why I support greater freedom.
I'm kind of tired, you'll probably be able to poke more than a few holes in what I wrote .. if so, I'll answer tomorrow. Cheers.
Reason I ask is not to ad-hominem you, just to see which arguments I should focus on.
Here are the basics though:
1. Compound discovery happens mostly in academic research labs prior to patenting. This is published in journals (paid, but "open source").
2. Wrt general scientific research, science has always been fine without patents: Einstein, Feynman and Co don't need financial incentive to do their best work, it's just what they do.
3. The role of pharmaceutical companies is fairly limited to clinical research, getting over regulatory hurdles and marketing. In a given year approx 100k potentially useful compounds will be discovered, but only a couple are approved by the FDA.
Let me know what you'd like to argue about..