Biotech and Antisense Technology

*\Conan/* · 06-24-2003, 12:25 PM

About 16,000 biotect executives and scientists are convening in Washington DC this week for their annaul meeting, the first in the nation's capital since 1990, amid excitement amoung cancer patients and investers about the potential of these new drugs. These drugs are the product of public and private investments in genetic research that is revealing the molecular secrects of tumors,and molecular substances, giving scientists new ideas about how to attack them, and creating the tools to exploit these ideas.

We have, to name a few, FluMist, Rebif, Viread, Amevive, Cardizem, Proleukin, Zevalin, Renagel, Aranesp, and finally Avastin.
Recently approved or under developement these drugs are expected to contribute to the rising fortunes of the top biotech companies in the near future.

Should these company's be allowed to price treatments, costing anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 a year, or asking a fair market price for the drug while NOT paying for the combined efforts of all who forged their way to help since 1953, Watson and Crick figured out the structure of a molecule called deoyribonucleic acid...?

I see life and death in the balance for many people in the world with this great leap in medical science but also see the potential for a diaster if the prices aren't based on a real prodution cost.

What are your feelings about this subject IronWorkers?

Mouse · 06-24-2003, 01:10 PM

These new drugs may prove a boon not just for headline grabbing diseases such as cancer, but for a whole rangs of auto-immune conditions. For example, Amevive seems to offer hopef as a a potential method of managing psoriasis.

Just how we as supposedly "civilised" societies balance the rights of the developers to profit from their research with the needs of disease sufferers will be interesting.

B_part · 06-24-2003, 01:43 PM

I firmly believe that health is a right to anyone, whether they can pay for it or not.

However one must also remember that R&D for drugs is extremely costly and risky. I am a biotechnology student, and I have had some experience with lab work: everything costs a fortune. It's not that uncommon to burn some thousand dollars if you flunk an experiment, and those things happen. And if you get them right, the cost isn't any lower. Take a peek if you wish to the prices on the catalogues of stratagene, biorad, sigma aldritch and so on. You will notice most of those thing cost more than your wedding ring.

So the point is: if you force companies to sell their products at unreasonably low prices, they will stop researching, and you will stop gettind brand new drugs designed to save your life. On the other side, if you let them do whatever they want, aspirin will rise to 100 dollars a tab.

My opinion is that some kind of public institute should monitor the production processes - it's actually quite easy to estimate the production cost of anything - and punish exploitations. Who should monitor the institute, well, that's another matter... And what does exactly exploit mean?...

Timber Loftis · 06-24-2003, 02:06 PM

The trick is in the patenting of the drugs. This is the payback the R&D folks get, as their company (or the company they sell to) will get a monopoly for a limited time (I think it's around 20 years for drugs).

The health effect on this is that the drug is prohibitively expensive for the first 20 years, then plummets in price as generics are made. It is good, IMO, when it plummets in price and we should never let the BigDrugCo's sell us on the notion that generics are bad. They are, in effect, the return of the system to the free market that would have existed absent the patent.

Of course, if you're poor, this just means you have to figure you can't afford any new drug you need until it's been around for 20 years. By which time your health has certainly been permanently affected. Therein lies the rub.

And, BigDrugCo tossing a few million at this charity or that charity may make BigDrugCo look and feel better, but it really doesn't address this problem.

*\Conan/* · 06-24-2003, 03:07 PM

Nice to meet you B-part and good luck in your study's! I am using the word as meaning "to try everything". Mixing this with that and see what happens basically. Tweaking genetic compounds to offer the best potential results using drug cocktails. Although someone has to try these drugs not really knowing what the long term effects on their body will be. In that sense the word could be taken in that context also.

Great idea Mouse. I am not sure of what the outcome of Imclone will be but I hope safeguards will be setup because of this early warning sign that something needs to be put in place. With Idec and Biogen merging into the 3rd largest Biotech firm out there what is likely to happen in the future suggests to me that compition in this field will get brutal and patients will start paying for that also. Just a thought. Amevive manipulates your T-cells and supresses them as in Aids treatments. Mybe some of you here at IW know that I have a touch of psoriasis and would welcome something that would work besides mythotrexate. Yes, I took that for awhile and it cleared up my skin as long as I was on it. It really made my body go crazy thow. I don't feel as thow I am ready to try this Biogen to clear up from what I went through, and still feel sometimes, for a few red patches of dry skin. The sun seems to really help so i will stay will that for now.

Good point Timber. I guess in medicine research the well to do can do as they please. I wish it wasn't that way.

B_part · 06-24-2003, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by *\Conan/*:
Nice to meet you B-part and good luck in your study's!

Thanks

Mouse · 06-24-2003, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by *\Conan/*:
Maybe some of you here at IW know that I have a touch of psoriasis and would welcome something that would work besides mythotrexate. Yes, I took that for awhile and it cleared up my skin as long as I was on it. It really made my body go crazy thow. I don't feel as thogh I am ready to try this Biogen to clear up from what I went through, and still feel sometimes, for a few red patches of dry skin. The sun seems to really help so i will stay will that for now.

Not sure what meds you are on just now, but in my experience, Dovobet is about the most effective topical treatment atm

I'm also interested in seeing what effect two weeks of full-on sunshine in Lanzarote will have in July.

Sir Kenyth · 06-24-2003, 05:01 PM

Don't curse the R&D guys making a profit. That's where the true cost of drugs is. All those scientists and huge labs cost a pretty penny you know.

Bungleau · 06-24-2003, 05:14 PM

From a business perspective, there are at least four kinds of costs to be considered. From top to bottom, they are:

Facility costs -- the cost of having a plant or facility to make or do anything.

Product costs -- the cost to make a product, including tooling and R&D

Batch costs -- the cost to make a batch of product, including setup and trial runs until the process is controlled

Unit costs -- the cost to make an additional unit of product. This is typically the raw material and production labor

Traditionally, facility and product costs are thought of as fixed, and batch and unit costs are thought of as variable.

To make a drug, companies incur substantial product costs -- the research involved in creating the drug and finding out whether it's useful or not. The company generates no revenue until it can sell some product, or starts to incur unit costs. If it never sells anything, it never makes any revenue.

So, the complaint about drug prices is about the price versus the unit cost, as opposed to the price versus the total cost. Each additional pill or treatment sold should cover its own unit cost and a portion of its batch cost, and any money left over starts to cover the product and facilities costs.

Eventually, enough product has been sold to cover the product costs. At that point, the money that covered the product cost is now pure (or mostly pure) profit.

Should companies be allowed to make a fair profit? Absolutely. Should they be rewarded for investing their money to develop products that may or may not succeed? Yep, as long as the market decides. Should they raise the price to what they think the market will bear? Well, here's the nutter between capitalism (yes) and socialism (no). There are no right answers for this one, just ways of being.

I say let 'em charge what the market will bear. That already happens, with negotiations between insurance companies and providers; the same thing will happen with the drug companies.

And now, I've gotta run, so I'll come back later for any toasty responses

*\Conan/* · 06-25-2003, 07:14 AM

I am convinced of how the costs can go to the roof when experimenting with these drugs and also the time, hard work, and investment it takes to do so. My dissapointment is how companies may dictate "what drugs" to pursue based on the profits rather then the cures or treatments. (Points well taken Sir K, and Bungleau.

)

I have tried Dovnex but not Dovobet Mouse. I will check up on that thank you! Lanzarote sounds good to me also. Couldn't be much worst then what kind of day we are having here. Code Red - Blah!

*\Conan/*

06-24-2003, 12:25 PM	#1
\Conan/ Red Dragon Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Virginia, USA Age: 62 Posts: 1,512	About 16,000 biotect executives and scientists are convening in Washington DC this week for their annaul meeting, the first in the nation's capital since 1990, amid excitement amoung cancer patients and investers about the potential of these new drugs. These drugs are the product of public and private investments in genetic research that is revealing the molecular secrects of tumors,and molecular substances, giving scientists new ideas about how to attack them, and creating the tools to exploit these ideas. We have, to name a few, FluMist, Rebif, Viread, Amevive, Cardizem, Proleukin, Zevalin, Renagel, Aranesp, and finally Avastin. Recently approved or under developement these drugs are expected to contribute to the rising fortunes of the top biotech companies in the near future. Should these company's be allowed to price treatments, costing anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 a year, or asking a fair market price for the drug while NOT paying for the combined efforts of all who forged their way to help since 1953, Watson and Crick figured out the structure of a molecule called deoyribonucleic acid...? I see life and death in the balance for many people in the world with this great leap in medical science but also see the potential for a diaster if the prices aren't based on a real prodution cost. What are your feelings about this subject IronWorkers? __________________ \\Conan/
$\Conan/ is offline$

06-24-2003, 01:10 PM	#2
Mouse Ironworks Moderator Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Scotland Posts: 2,788	These new drugs may prove a boon not just for headline grabbing diseases such as cancer, but for a whole rangs of auto-immune conditions. For example, Amevive seems to offer hopef as a a potential method of managing psoriasis. Just how we as supposedly "civilised" societies balance the rights of the developers to profit from their research with the needs of disease sufferers will be interesting. __________________ Regards Mouse (Occasional crooner and all round friendly Scottish rodent)

06-24-2003, 01:43 PM	#3
B_part Quintesson Join Date: September 11, 2002 Location: Milan (Italy) Age: 43 Posts: 1,066	I firmly believe that health is a right to anyone, whether they can pay for it or not. However one must also remember that R&D for drugs is extremely costly and risky. I am a biotechnology student, and I have had some experience with lab work: everything costs a fortune. It's not that uncommon to burn some thousand dollars if you flunk an experiment, and those things happen. And if you get them right, the cost isn't any lower. Take a peek if you wish to the prices on the catalogues of stratagene, biorad, sigma aldritch and so on. You will notice most of those thing cost more than your wedding ring. So the point is: if you force companies to sell their products at unreasonably low prices, they will stop researching, and you will stop gettind brand new drugs designed to save your life. On the other side, if you let them do whatever they want, aspirin will rise to 100 dollars a tab. My opinion is that some kind of public institute should monitor the production processes - it's actually quite easy to estimate the production cost of anything - and punish exploitations. Who should monitor the institute, well, that's another matter... And what does exactly exploit mean?... __________________ Never attribute to malice that which can be ascribed to sheer stupidity

06-24-2003, 02:06 PM	#4
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	The trick is in the patenting of the drugs. This is the payback the R&D folks get, as their company (or the company they sell to) will get a monopoly for a limited time (I think it's around 20 years for drugs). The health effect on this is that the drug is prohibitively expensive for the first 20 years, then plummets in price as generics are made. It is good, IMO, when it plummets in price and we should never let the BigDrugCo's sell us on the notion that generics are bad. They are, in effect, the return of the system to the free market that would have existed absent the patent. Of course, if you're poor, this just means you have to figure you can't afford any new drug you need until it's been around for 20 years. By which time your health has certainly been permanently affected. Therein lies the rub. And, BigDrugCo tossing a few million at this charity or that charity may make BigDrugCo look and feel better, but it really doesn't address this problem. __________________

06-24-2003, 03:07 PM	#5
\Conan/ Red Dragon Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Virginia, USA Age: 62 Posts: 1,512	Nice to meet you B-part and good luck in your study's! I am using the word as meaning "to try everything". Mixing this with that and see what happens basically. Tweaking genetic compounds to offer the best potential results using drug cocktails. Although someone has to try these drugs not really knowing what the long term effects on their body will be. In that sense the word could be taken in that context also. Great idea Mouse. I am not sure of what the outcome of Imclone will be but I hope safeguards will be setup because of this early warning sign that something needs to be put in place. With Idec and Biogen merging into the 3rd largest Biotech firm out there what is likely to happen in the future suggests to me that compition in this field will get brutal and patients will start paying for that also. Just a thought. Amevive manipulates your T-cells and supresses them as in Aids treatments. Mybe some of you here at IW know that I have a touch of psoriasis and would welcome something that would work besides mythotrexate. Yes, I took that for awhile and it cleared up my skin as long as I was on it. It really made my body go crazy thow. I don't feel as thow I am ready to try this Biogen to clear up from what I went through, and still feel sometimes, for a few red patches of dry skin. The sun seems to really help so i will stay will that for now. Good point Timber. I guess in medicine research the well to do can do as they please. I wish it wasn't that way. __________________ \\Conan/
$\Conan/ is offline$

06-24-2003, 05:01 PM	#8
Sir Kenyth Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: August 30, 2001 Location: somewhere Age: 54 Posts: 1,785	Don't curse the R&D guys making a profit. That's where the true cost of drugs is. All those scientists and huge labs cost a pretty penny you know. __________________ Master Barbsman and wielder of the razor wit!<br /><br />There are dark angels among us. They present themselves in shining raiment but there is, in their hearts, the blackness of the abyss.

06-24-2003, 05:14 PM	#9
Bungleau 40th Level Warrior Join Date: October 29, 2001 Location: Western Wilds of Michigan Posts: 11,752	From a business perspective, there are at least four kinds of costs to be considered. From top to bottom, they are: Facility costs -- the cost of having a plant or facility to make or do anything. Product costs -- the cost to make a product, including tooling and R&D Batch costs -- the cost to make a batch of product, including setup and trial runs until the process is controlled Unit costs -- the cost to make an additional unit of product. This is typically the raw material and production labor Traditionally, facility and product costs are thought of as fixed, and batch and unit costs are thought of as variable. To make a drug, companies incur substantial product costs -- the research involved in creating the drug and finding out whether it's useful or not. The company generates no revenue until it can sell some product, or starts to incur unit costs. If it never sells anything, it never makes any revenue. So, the complaint about drug prices is about the price versus the unit cost, as opposed to the price versus the total cost. Each additional pill or treatment sold should cover its own unit cost and a portion of its batch cost, and any money left over starts to cover the product and facilities costs. Eventually, enough product has been sold to cover the product costs. At that point, the money that covered the product cost is now pure (or mostly pure) profit. Should companies be allowed to make a fair profit? Absolutely. Should they be rewarded for investing their money to develop products that may or may not succeed? Yep, as long as the market decides. Should they raise the price to what they think the market will bear? Well, here's the nutter between capitalism (yes) and socialism (no). There are no right answers for this one, just ways of being. I say let 'em charge what the market will bear. That already happens, with negotiations between insurance companies and providers; the same thing will happen with the drug companies. And now, I've gotta run, so I'll come back later for any toasty responses __________________ B Save Early, Save Often Save Before, Save After Two-Star General, Spelling Soldiers -+-+-+ Give 'em a hug one more time. It might be the last.

06-25-2003, 07:14 AM	#10
\Conan/ Red Dragon Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Virginia, USA Age: 62 Posts: 1,512	I am convinced of how the costs can go to the roof when experimenting with these drugs and also the time, hard work, and investment it takes to do so. My dissapointment is how companies may dictate "what drugs" to pursue based on the profits rather then the cures or treatments. (Points well taken Sir K, and Bungleau. ) I have tried Dovnex but not Dovobet Mouse. I will check up on that thank you! Lanzarote sounds good to me also. Couldn't be much worst then what kind of day we are having here. Code Red - Blah! \Conan/
$\Conan/ is offline$

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Advanced Technology...I WANT IT!!!	Larry_OHF	General Discussion	12	03-01-2007 11:32 AM
New supermarket technology	Bungleau	General Discussion	4	11-29-2006 03:46 PM
TECHNOLOGY!!!	Spirits forever	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	4	02-04-2004 06:55 AM
Biotech has failed to slow Pesticide Usage	Timber Loftis	General Discussion	0	12-03-2003 11:05 AM
New EU Biotech Legislation	Timber Loftis	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	4	05-29-2003 12:04 PM