|
Helsing posted:
The current system works fine. Large companies and shareholders who want quick profits do poorly in investing in basic research where it's hard to pick out where the profits will roll in. It's already so difficult to start a biotech and try to get funding despite NOT see a profit for 10+ years. Universities and public institutions can't attract enough capital to push a basic scientific concept to consumer product. It costs approximately 1 billion dollars to get one successfully approved drug. That's approved. Not profitable (ask me about the drug that costs 6 billion dollars to gain approval and was ultimately written off by Pfizer). Bayh-Dole makes an almost perfect public-private partnership. The federal government relinquishes IP rights to research it funds over to the university that discovered it with NIH/NSF funding. The University files the patents and licenses it to biotech/pharma who invest in it further and hopefully make a product. Profits are shared back with the original owner of the IP (University) who as a non-profit reinvests it back into the university. Bayh-Dole funds education, funds scientific research, and stimulates economic activity. There are ways to get the government to fund the entire enterprise start to finish, but that would entail restructuring the entire public and private health care research enterprise. It's possible, but will cost hundreds of billions if not trillions. Of course, anything is possible if you have enough money. Vladimir Putin fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Dec 9, 2013 |
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Buffer posted:
Repealing Bayh-Dole would make things worse. Someone has to seek IP protection for things they invent when funded by the government. Otherwise, there will be no investment of capital to develop it further. Without Bayh-Dole it would revert back to the federal government who has almost no institutional connection with the individuals who invented it in the first place. It's going to be a living hell for investors to try to interface with the federal government to try to get access to the inventors and license the technologies.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What's the proportion of R&D costs met with public funds vs. private funds? Just saying it's conducted in public universities doesn't mean much: the drug companies could easily be footing the bill. In addition, many of those public universities own patents: what's the percentage of funds extracted by patents that go back to public universities and how favorably/unfavorably does that compare to the funds they put in? I've had experience in public research in the biotech sector. Most of university research in that space is funded by public money. The money it gets back in royalties from patents is usually a small percentage of total funds received from the federal government in grants. Most of the time, a successful IP case takes in a couple of million per year for the remaining lifetime of the patent (which was most likely filed at the most early stage of the lifetime of the product). That tells only part of the story in that the IP also stimulates economic activity. Startups are launched which hire highly skilled workers who produce more valuable IP which is licensed, developed, and so on. That kind of activity is harder to measure, but it's pretty valuable and is part of the mission of the government and the university.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Its further worth pointing out that it's essentially impossible to get a biotech startup funded without some IP. VCs know the big firms won't enter an untested market on their own, but if a startup without IP protection becomes successful genentech will just come in a crush it. So, without IP protection a lot of the Bayh-Dole act derived medical treatments would never reach market. It should be obvious that no one will invest in a immature technology with no IP protection. Barring some minor fixes, is probably one of the better systems we can have. Public money brings the very immature technology to the marketplace where private capital develops it into a fully realized product. The profits are shared with the holders of the original IP in proportion to its market value accounting for risk and potential at the time of licensing. For high risk technologies like biotech, this distributes the risks to where each party is ideally suited to handle it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:You may have known that the IP superstructure was an exploitive system of rent extraction on behalf of a parasitic bourgeoisie but did you know: it's also patriarchal as hell and excludes women both epistemologically and empirically? Check it out! "rent extraction on behalf of a parasitic bourgeoisie"? What the hell does that mean?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Buffer posted:It's public domain if it's funded with public moneys. There, solved. People typically publish and file for patent protection simultaneously. I mean think of the alternative. If you just shove everything out into the public domain without protecting it, the government who paid for the research gets cut out of any of the proceeds. At least with Bayh-Dole if a company uses the published result(that is protected by patent) to create a product, the university gets a cut of the profits. And they can use that share to invest in more research or whatever non-profit educational institutions do.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
quote:The specific causes of discrimination are also complicated, and elucidated only slightly by the case of Marlo Brown, who identified certain health issues in cats at a shelter she ran and asked a local lab for help. The lab isolated a virus and patented a diagnosis technique, on which she was not listed. She sued. The 1994 ruling (Regents of the University of California v. Synbiotics Corp.) concluded that “Brown was not present and did not participate in any way in the events of the ‘simultaneous conception and reduction to practice’ of the FIV virus,” but merely “brought her sick cats, along with her written observations of the cats’ symptoms, to UC Davis with a suspicion that the cats may have a virus similar to the human AIDS virus.” Her suspicions — and her suggestion of the FIV virus — were the exact ones scientists later confirmed. That this translates into “did not participate in any way” in the process of identifying a virus is confusing, but legally sound. It points to the specific actions prized under patent law, and the narrow, and gendered, set of behaviors it values. Uhh as a scientist, I don't think Marlo Brown deserved to be on a patent for "isolating a virus and patenting a diagnosis technique" when it appears she did neither. Did she take blood samples out of her cats, isolate the virus and then grow them up in media and sequence the genomes? Did she conceive of the antibodies or perhaps PCR fragments that could be used as an actual test for FIV? It has nothing to do with Marlo Brown being a woman, and has nothing to do with people being big meanies. It has everything to do with the authors not understanding what "reduction to practice" means. And the authors also seem to have no idea what it means to contribute substantively and intellectually to a scientific idea.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 18, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Buffer posted:Never been anywhere that qualified for these. Everything in this post is wrong. Your concept of what happens in government sponsored research is totally off base.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 03:21
|
|