Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Diego Researcher Crowdfunding Patent-Free Cancer Drug

timesofsandiego.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 94 posts

Re: San Diego Researcher Crowdfunding Patent-Free Cancer Drug

#11

Post by dnautics »

rgejman wrote: post #8
dnautics wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a quote that my experience in science has caused me to resonate with. "I think there's been a Gresham's Law in science funding in this country, as the political people who are nimble in the art of writing government grants have gradually displaced the eccentric and idiosyncratic people who typically make the best scientists. The eccentric university professor is a species that is going extinct fast." - Peter…

There are many problems with the institutions in this country that give grants. However, crowdsourcing is not the answer. Nor is baiting people by offering them the promise of a "patent free" cancer drug. Full-term drug development, including clinical trials reaches into the billions of dollars. You're never going to crowdsource that. So even if your drug is wildly successful and nontoxic (of which the chances are ti…

how is that a bait? I'm pretty damn serious about that. Anyone who knows me knows that I have been a very fervent anti-patent person for years now. It's caused problems in places that I have worked.

I think it's correct to say that I am not going to crowdfund the entire drug development. Accordingly, that is not the plan. My vision is that the first stage (well second, really) is crowdfunded to show that there is broad interest in the idea in society, to raise some amount of funding outside of institutional granters, and achieve a productive result showing that indysci (and I) are not totally incompetent buffoons.

The completion of preclinicals (which typically ranges in the single-to-double-digit millions) would probably best come from institutional nonprofit granters, and running clinicals should come from the for-profit (probably generic) pharma that is seeking to capitalize on it. But I'm open-minded to other ideas.

Re: San Diego Researcher Crowdfunding Patent-Free Cancer Drug

#12

Post by dnautics »

alex_duf wrote: post #7
rgejman wrote: post #5

We already have crowd funding for science. We do it as a whole society when we fund the various grant-giving agencies in this country. I cannot emphasize how bad of an idea it is to take funding decisions away from professional scientists and place them in the hands of untrained individuals, no matter how enthusiastic they may be nor how much money they are willing to throw away.

Does state sponsored research guaranties that result will be made public and shared ? (This is a serious question) If so, I agree with you, If not, I see here a strong argument for crowd funded projects like that.

Currently not all state sponsored research guarantees shared results, but the NIH does (after one year). But: Not all results are guaranteed to be public, just the published work. If you really wanted to know, for state-sponsored research in the US, you could probably FOIA results, all the way down to the notebooks.

Re: San Diego Researcher Crowdfunding Patent-Free Cancer Drug

#13

Post by rgejman »

dnautics wrote: post #11
rgejman wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many problems with the institutions in this country that give grants. However, crowdsourcing is not the answer. Nor is baiting people by offering them the promise of a "patent free" cancer drug. Full-term drug development, including clinical trials reaches into the billions of dollars. You're never going to crowdsource that. So even if your drug is wildly successful and nontoxic (of which the chances are ti…

how is that a bait? I'm pretty damn serious about that. Anyone who knows me knows that I have been a very fervent anti-patent person for years now. It's caused problems in places that I have worked. I think it's correct to say that I am not going to crowdfund the entire drug development. Accordingly, that is not the plan . My vision is that the first stage (well second, really) is crowdfunded to show that there is br…

The "bait" is the claim that a patent-less drug will be cheaper when it finally comes into use in the clinic than a patented drug (from your indysci campaign: "Releasing without a patent means the drugs will be cheaper and it will be easier to build on the work to make improved drugs or drug combinations. Releasing without a patent means expanded access to drugs in countries that can't afford extensive licensing and export agreements.")

But you and I both know that is not how drug development works. When you bring in a pharmaceutical company to fund the clinical trials (which are hugely risky) they will demand an upside. The upside will come if they (a) make a derivative molecule that they can patent (b) patent a use of the drug for an indication (c) package the molecule in a way that is patentable -- e.g. with an adjuvant.

The crowdsourcing page on Indysci reads as if the drug will eventually be cheap and readily accessible just because you have not applied for patent protection.

Another point: the indysci page misleads people about what drug patents means by comparing it to open-source software. As an academic researcher, you can work on ANY molecule, no matter its patent status, in an academic research setting. That means you can develop new uses for the molecule, make derivatives, etc. What you really mean is that patented drugs cannot be SOLD by anyone other than the manufacturer.

Re: San Diego Researcher Crowdfunding Patent-Free Cancer Drug

#14

Post by ig1 »

People don't seem to realize how expensive it is to bring a new pharmaceutical drug to market and why this approach won't work.

A typical drug will cost between $1bn-$2bn and take about a decade of work by the time it hits the shelves.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development has details for those interested)

Crowdfunding at those sort of levels just isn't feasible yet.

Re: San Diego Researcher Crowdfunding Patent-Free Cancer Drug

#15

Post by exratione »

rgejman wrote: post #5

We already have crowd funding for science. We do it as a whole society when we fund the various grant-giving agencies in this country. I cannot emphasize how bad of an idea it is to take funding decisions away from professional scientists and place them in the hands of untrained individuals, no matter how enthusiastic they may be nor how much money they are willing to throw away.

This displays a profound ignorance of the real situation, which is that the majority of useful early stage research is funded by philanthropy. Not by government, not by companies, but by people making donations. It doesn't come from the existing funding institutions because they almost never fund anything that hasn't already had its prototype and early stage research completed successfully. If you don't have your proof of concept you are not getting funded, and the institutions don't really care about where the starting point of the pipeline actually comes from. Every lab scrapes out funding from the corners of existing grants and petitions patrons to conduct what is arguably their most important work, which is to say the actual work of taking risks and creating new things.

What most people call research grants are nothing of the sort. They are development grants. The research already happened, and it was paid for by bootstrapped philanthropy.

Re: San Diego Researcher Crowdfunding Patent-Free Cancer Drug

#16

Post by jonlucc »

ig1 wrote: post #14

People don't seem to realize how expensive it is to bring a new pharmaceutical drug to market and why this approach won't work. A typical drug will cost between $1bn-$2bn and take about a decade of work by the time it hits the shelves. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development has details for those interested) Crowdfunding at those sort of levels just isn't feasible yet.

Worse, I fear that cancer patients and their loved ones will get overly enthusiastic about this. Then, when they donate tons of money and it fails, they are out money, time, and a drug. This is the reason pharmaceutical companies are cautious about contacting patient advocacy groups.

Re: San Diego Researcher Crowdfunding Patent-Free Cancer Drug

#17

Post by exratione »

ig1 wrote: post #14

People don't seem to realize how expensive it is to bring a new pharmaceutical drug to market and why this approach won't work. A typical drug will cost between $1bn-$2bn and take about a decade of work by the time it hits the shelves. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development has details for those interested) Crowdfunding at those sort of levels just isn't feasible yet.

You don't need to crowdfund any more than it costs to convince a group with $1bn that they can make money on this by spending that to commercialize your demonstration. That is often just a few million, or even less, depending on how compelling your data and how good your connections.

Most of that $1bn and decade of time is make-work created by ever more risk-averse regulators. The actual process of creating something, making a product, and gathering reasonable data on safety is a fraction of that.

Re: San Diego Researcher Crowdfunding Patent-Free Cancer Drug

#18

Post by rgejman »

exratione wrote: post #15
rgejman wrote: post #5

We already have crowd funding for science. We do it as a whole society when we fund the various grant-giving agencies in this country. I cannot emphasize how bad of an idea it is to take funding decisions away from professional scientists and place them in the hands of untrained individuals, no matter how enthusiastic they may be nor how much money they are willing to throw away.

This displays a profound ignorance of the real situation, which is that the majority of useful early stage research is funded by philanthropy. Not by government, not by companies, but by people making donations. It doesn't come from the existing funding institutions because they almost never fund anything that hasn't already had its prototype and early stage research completed successfully. If you don't have your pro…

These philanthropic organizations almost always have either (a) committees made up of scientists that decide where the money should be allocated (e.g. HHMI) or (b) donate to institutions which then dole out money internally as project grants that are vetted by other scientists.

Philanthropic organizations don't generally just hand out money to the person who makes the flashiest video.

Re: San Diego Researcher Crowdfunding Patent-Free Cancer Drug

#19

Post by jonlucc »

exratione wrote: post #17
ig1 wrote: post #14

People don't seem to realize how expensive it is to bring a new pharmaceutical drug to market and why this approach won't work. A typical drug will cost between $1bn-$2bn and take about a decade of work by the time it hits the shelves. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development has details for those interested) Crowdfunding at those sort of levels just isn't feasible yet.

You don't need to crowdfund any more than it costs to convince a group with $1bn that they can make money on this by spending that to commercialize your demonstration. That is often just a few million, or even less, depending on how compelling your data and how good your connections. Most of that $1bn and decade of time is make-work created by ever more risk-averse regulators. The actual process of creating something…

Wouldn't a group with $1bn to spend want a patent to ensure they would get a return on that money?

Re: San Diego Researcher Crowdfunding Patent-Free Cancer Drug

#20

Post by ig1 »

exratione wrote: post #17
ig1 wrote: post #14

People don't seem to realize how expensive it is to bring a new pharmaceutical drug to market and why this approach won't work. A typical drug will cost between $1bn-$2bn and take about a decade of work by the time it hits the shelves. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development has details for those interested) Crowdfunding at those sort of levels just isn't feasible yet.

You don't need to crowdfund any more than it costs to convince a group with $1bn that they can make money on this by spending that to commercialize your demonstration. That is often just a few million, or even less, depending on how compelling your data and how good your connections. Most of that $1bn and decade of time is make-work created by ever more risk-averse regulators. The actual process of creating something…

Why would a company invest a $1bn on a drug they can't patent ?

Also drug companies can't just decide they don't want to get FDA approval because it's too much work. They have to work within existing regulations whether they like them or not.

Post reply on HN