- They don't see pharma as doing "basic research", certainly as much as NIH.
- I think that can be true, but I find it intriguing that basic biology is always seen as "basic research" (and not a salable product.)
- Is high-throughput screening basic research? At what point does "medicinal chemistry" become "applied research"?
- I would really like a full discussion of the reasons why pharma companies don't work on antibiotics research; Ms. Kliff goes with the standard "not enough pills = not enough money" explanation.
- I think Derek Lowe has established that it's a difficult scientific problem.
- I wonder if it might be that if you come up with a new first-in-class antibiotic, the medical community would be incentivized/encouraged not to use it, in order to save it for truly resistant bacteria.
- Ms. Kliff's comment at 3:50 that pharma investors won't stand for "investing in flop after flop" is very interesting.
Friday, April 5, 2013
How DC policy reporters see pharma R&D
This video of a couple of Washington Post reporters talking about the state of biomedical research is interesting, if only to see the scope of their knowledge about the pharmaceutical industry.