Writing a short story. Tell me about biomedical research in

>My understanding is that the pharmaceutical companies shoulder most of the actual legwork in drug research (with help from government funding).

This is largely accurate, for "pharmaceutical companies" encompasses a vast swath of firms. The process of developing a drug typically runs anywhere from 8 - 15 years, and costs over a billion dollars. Big pharmaceutical companies have the resources that smaller biotech start-ups and universities do not.

>How much research in drug development actually comes from the federal government itself?

Typically, basic research performed is performed at universities and medical schools, funded by the federal government. (This does not always apply, as there are established biotech conglomerates, Genentech most notably, that emphasize R&D.) In the context of drug development, basic research would, hypothetically, serve to identify the genetic and molecular bases of the diseased state, and subsequently "work out" the normal physiology of the biological system and/or biochemical pathways that are erred in disease. At this point, there may be a prominent "target" -- that is, a protein (usually) that is established to drive the disease.

Industry (biotech, big pharma, etc.) and academia can be involved in drug development. If the work is performed in academia, often the PIs will patent the lead compounds and/or platform technology, publish, and either license the technology to industry or spin-off a start-up to develop the therapeutic. This point is where the private sector funds the research.

File: WHY IS HEALTHCARE SO EXPENSIVE.jpg (1MB, 1097x2706px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1097x2706px

I'll just leave this here.

The best thing for America to do is allow a free market in healthcare.

This is the only way we could have someone like elon musk create massive innovation in the healthcare industry.

Free the fucking market

>>8415809

I see. So the US government doesn't have its own 'in-house' labs? There's no NASA or DARPA of biomedical research?

>>8415965
uk has cheaper medical costs per head than america and the majority is state run.

>>8415965
>people dying outside the hospital of easily treatable issues because they dont have insurance
>but hey MUH FREE MARKET right

>>8416056
a problem with economics is that there are so many prescriptive viewpoints on how to run an economy but all these models are very poorly validated and none of them probably have near the efficacy that the people supporting them espouse.

>problems of trying to model complex systems.
>problems when a persons political or economic viewpoints are usually context invariant.

File: 1353540304091.png (130KB, 1134x1357px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1134x1357px

>>8416073
>>8416056
What the fuck does this have to do with the free market?

Do you actually think the USA has a free market healthcare system?
Lmao

Also the NHS is a joke.

>>8416004
>I see. So the US government doesn't have its own 'in-house' labs? There's no NASA or DARPA of biomedical research?

It does, actually. There is an Intramural Research Program (IRP) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIH_Intramural_Research_Program.

As far as I know, labs at the NIH have to compete for funding from the NIH, as do labs at universities and medical schools. Moreover, it would be feasible to support the decade-long, multi-billion dollar process of developing a drug through the means that typically fund basic research. In other words, an academic lab doing basic research will be fat and happy with a few RO1s, but that will not come anywhere close to providing sufficient funding for a drug discovery project.

>>8417779
>Moreover, it would be feasible to support the decade-long, multi-billion dollar process of developing a drug through the means that typically fund basic research.

Excuse my typo. I should have said "Moreover, it would NOT be feasible to support the decade-long, multi-billion dollar process of developing a drug through the means that typically fund basic research."

>>8416164
its not a joke, its a good health service. it may have problems but most things seem to in society especially in austerity after a financial crisis but uk healthcare is consistently ranked amongst the top in the world.

my point is that americans say that privatisation always lowers costs but it doesnt necessarily and costs depend on economic context.

>>8416164
free market healthcare wouldnt work anyway.

people advocate free markets when for a free market to work well (on paper) you need very competitive markets and an efficiency which generally doesnt happen in real life in this modern age.

people also should be wary of taking prescriptions from old economists who live in a different economic context from today.

>>8415965
>>8416073

> Retardicans detected

Voting for Trump too, lolbertarians?

#ImWithHer

>>8417781
>"Moreover, it would NOT be feasible to support the decade-long, multi-billion dollar process of developing a drug through the means that typically fund basic research."

Why not?
(Not arguing with you, just looking for details to slip into my story's background for verisimilitude.)

File: catwink.gif (1MB, 480x167px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x167px

>>8414699
That's a cute cat.

>>8418684

The cost of developing drug candidates is far too great, and federal grants are typically too short in duration.

There have been very well-funded academic labs with the resources and infrastructure to study pre-clinical drug candidates in mice and/or rats. These labs must have several hefty grants from the NIH -- the R01 (1.25 million dollars over 3 years) is the most notable example -- and typically is at a an R1 research university that has facilities to support this work.

But, I've never seen academic labs move a pre-clinical drug candidate to higher mammals (such as toxicity or drug metabolism testing in dogs and pigs) on only federal grants without any sort of industry partnership and/or funding. The process of developing pre-clinical drug candidates, in mice, rats, pigs, dogs, and monkeys, can take multiple years. The price of trials in higher mammals runs on the order of tens of thousands of dollars per animal per trial. Multiply that over many animals, over many years, and the costs easily run into the seven- to eight-figure range. This, of course, is only one segment of drug development; there are years of basic research prior to animal studies (characterizing target, identifying lead compounds, cell-based studies, etc.), and years of clinical trials after animal studies.

>>8418005
Nice argument you fucking faggot.

>>8419195
Fun fact: Cats can only wink due to neurological disorders. Unlike us, the neural pathways that control their eyelids converge at one point before reaching the brain. When they have a neurological issue they involuntarily use one eyelid like that. The poor thing probably doesn't have much left to live.

>>8418104
Go back to your containment board.

>>/pol/

>>8420098
>this board is owned by shilltards
your delusions are setting in again

Am frankly only here for kitty cat.

File: t3_524r0p.jpg (56KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1080x1080px

>>8420336

>>8420085
>>8420085
Y-you're lying. That cat is probably fine.

>>8420085

Srsly? That is upsetting, I really like cats.