After thinking about this some more, part of the reason I’m having trouble with the point on IP waivers being made in this post is that it assumes that one thing will be done (in this case, IP waivers), and that everything else will remain the same. But that’s not usually how things work out. Every change we make has follow-on effects, which also have follow-on effects, and so on. If IP waivers cause biotech companies to not be incentivized to create vaccines, but if there is a huge need for vaccines, public funding will take the place of IP incentives. This could end up being a huge improvement over the current incentives, which prioritize the most profitable investments, rather than the most needed ones.
If IP waivers cause biotech companies to not be incentivized to create vaccines, but if there is a huge need for vaccines, public funding will take the place of IP incentives.
How well does public funding for antibiotics where selling newly developed one’s for profit is effectively outlawed work at the moment?
It seem to me that it works pretty poorly and I see no reason for it to be different with government funded vaccines.
That’s...not a great comparison. There are pretty good public health reasons NOT to be hasty in developing new antibiotics, regardless of the funding model.
I don’t think any new drug development (outside developing vaccine’s against a targeted that’s easy to vaccinate against because of prior research) is well described as ‘hasty’. While I think it’s worth arguing that developing antibiotics is stupid, the policy circles who care about the topic do think that it’s valuable to develop new antibiotics.
If they would change the regulations to allow for phage therapy and fund it I would also be okay with that, but they do neither.
After thinking about this some more, part of the reason I’m having trouble with the point on IP waivers being made in this post is that it assumes that one thing will be done (in this case, IP waivers), and that everything else will remain the same. But that’s not usually how things work out. Every change we make has follow-on effects, which also have follow-on effects, and so on. If IP waivers cause biotech companies to not be incentivized to create vaccines, but if there is a huge need for vaccines, public funding will take the place of IP incentives. This could end up being a huge improvement over the current incentives, which prioritize the most profitable investments, rather than the most needed ones.
How well does public funding for antibiotics where selling newly developed one’s for profit is effectively outlawed work at the moment?
It seem to me that it works pretty poorly and I see no reason for it to be different with government funded vaccines.
That’s...not a great comparison. There are pretty good public health reasons NOT to be hasty in developing new antibiotics, regardless of the funding model.
I don’t think any new drug development (outside developing vaccine’s against a targeted that’s easy to vaccinate against because of prior research) is well described as ‘hasty’. While I think it’s worth arguing that developing antibiotics is stupid, the policy circles who care about the topic do think that it’s valuable to develop new antibiotics.
If they would change the regulations to allow for phage therapy and fund it I would also be okay with that, but they do neither.