>>Try this analogy. Taxpayers pay for most road construction. What if the contractors hired with that money decided to put a toll on the road? Would that be okay because they'd done the actual work?
>>
>>> I don't know which company produces Lipitor and Viagra but I understand they made billions in profits selling these drugs. And rightly so; they have improved the lives of millions of men. Of course for myself I will say that my cholesterol level is fine without any medication <bg>.
>>
>>I don't think anyone here is saying that pharma shouldn't make profits. This issue is how much. What's reasonable given that virtually every pharma product is based on research for which we, the people, paid.
>>
>>And yeah, I do donate to some organizations that support research. But I'm reasonably sure (as the granddaughter, daughter, niece, and mother of research scientists) that the lion's share of research funding comes from the government. I couldn't turn up comparative stats with a quick search, but I do see that for FY11, NSF plus NIH research funding was in the range of $37 billion. That's not all biological/medical research, but that's a lot of money. Some of it goes directly to pharma for research, much goes to universities and research centers.
>>
>>Tamar
>
>Again, I don’t think some government bureaucrat should say what is fair and reasonable and what is not (my take on it is that they, the government bureaucrats, get one dollar is already unfair and unreasonable <g>). As far as “government” giving money for the research, they give yours and mine money (not theirs) and all they care is that for this money they either get votes so they can keep their seats. Or they get money back so that they can buy votes of other people. What does Biden, Obama, and Boehner (for that matter) know about where research funds should be spent (there is an interesting chapter in the book Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessig that describes how moneys are given to universities).

Congress doesn't make the direct decisions. Do you know anything about how research dollars are allocated? I do, because, as I said, I have a lot of scientists in my family. I have vivid childhood memories of helping my father proofread his grant requests.

Scientists write grant requests, following a specified format. (Here are the guidelines for the NSF: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_index.jsp.) They are evaluated by scientists, who decide which proposals get funded and which do not. Those funded have reporting requirements to ensure that the money is spend as was proposed.

>
>But I see your point so let’s compromise. When a pharma (if they take public funds for research) start selling their drugs (note they have a patent, so your road construction example does not work) and make money, they have to pay back (with interest) for every dollar of public money they had received. But it is their decision what to charge so that if they make huge profits (after paying back), it is fine with me. Are we in agreement? <g>.

Not at all. The point is not just that the government provides research grants to pharmaceutical companies directly, but that the government (or, if you prefer, we, the people) bear most of the burden of the basic research on which the pharmaceutical companies build. Without the work of the scientists who do the basic research, pharma would be unable to do what they do, as they'd have no idea where to even start looking for drugs that work.

Tamar