Digby lights on the sort of story that makes my blood boil:
It is expected there would be no problems securing funding to explore a drug that could shrink cancerous tumors and has no side-effects in humans, but University of Alberta researcher Evangelos Michelakis has hit a stalemate with the private sector who would normally fund such a venture.
Michelakis' drug is none other than dichloroacetate (DCA), a drug which cannot be patented and costs pennies to make.
It's no wonder he can't secure the $400-600 million needed to conduct human trials with the medicine - the drug doesn't have the potential to make enough money.
Michelakis told reporters they will be applying to public agencies for funding, as pharmaceuticals are reluctant to pick up the drug
As I've said before, using the government's monopsony and formulary powers to radically reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals probably won't hurt private R&D much (see here for another example of that). But even if it did, pumping those same savings into public sector research and development would more than balance the scales. So much of the genuinely original molecular research is being done on the NIH's dime in university labs -- but the NIH is underfunded, and so passing on promising and/or risky applications. Pumping cash into their coffers would be a wise, wise investment, and would open promising avenues for research that the drug companies won't currently pursue.
