Hi John :)

I just gooled a bit astonished by that billion figure for R&D of a single drug.
I have to say that this quote from link I posted sounds quiet convincing to me
here is why; (See below)

>I'm not sure that Naderites are necessarily more "independent" than Tufts. ;-)

So what is the 'Naderites' cut in this ? Chance to win powerfull enemies ?
Who have interest to pay them for 'fringed' analysis about drug-business creative accounting?
Citisen association ? They would be better off doing analysis for Pfizer,Novartis etc <g>

>
>For a start, I think it's overly utopian to exclude opportunity cost. If you invest $100 in your business, you have to include "the interest you could have been earning" as part of the cost of the investment. Otherwise you can end up believing your business is profitable even though its return is less than you'd get by putting the $ in the bank and going to the beach.

399m is interest on what ? 802m that includes that very interest ?
On how many years of non-investing ? What if drug-company have to loan the money
for R&D, do they still get to count 399m as loss of opportunity to invest that loaned money, to bank who offer bigger interest from the one they loaned money from ? Well that is quiet creative <g>

>As for government support and tax breaks- lets not forget that it is the government that imposes much of the development cost in the first place, in the interests of public benefit. If the government decides to partially fund development, presumably for the same reason, I don't see that as a killer argument about anything in particular.

Well, when over-inflated R&D costs are directly helping you increase value of your stocks
on bourse while in the same time you get tax-breaks then that creates quiet a bit of
'motivation' for creative accounting. OTOH Government incures expences to everybody
so it might serve as efficient detterent to competittion from smaller companies. There4 If you are amongst biggest fish out there, you gotta love that waters.


>
>I'd also suggest that were it ever to reach the point where pharma could claim back only out-of-pocket expenses as suggested by Public Citizen, R&D would dry up or shift overseas. I'm afraid that utopians have little if any concept of risk or the returns you have to allow if you want people to take risk.

I don't think so; There is so much accumalated money in their coffuers, that weather they
like it or not they have to invest it. Even big fish get eaten up, when it start to
lag on swiming power. Otherwise, as you said they could simply invest 403 mils every couple of months and live off those 399m interest 'rationings' until the end of the days ;)

Cheers :)
Sergio