Why does he conclude there is no alternative? He already argued this would be strange in other disciplines. So reform it.

▲

mlyle 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you can think of a way that you can have a much higher chance than 9% of success in getting a useful treatment to market, you can make a boatload of money. Go ahead, reform it.

	▲	calf 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not knowing of a way is inequivalent to inexistence of any way. This is basic and apparently some bloggers are bad writers and or political conservatives of the type "there is no alternative".

▲

estearum 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can go make literally a trillion dollars if you can come up with an alternative.

	▲	calf 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Irrelevant hypothetical.

▲

EA-3167 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How? He’s saying that he can’t think of any good ones, and in my experience that’s true of most informed people. This is one of those hard problems that needs solutions, and so far the present system is the best anyone has managed.

	▲	calf 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't care what he's "saying that" which is just your biased interpretation. His essay does not warrant the final concluding sentence which would require a different essay thesis. It's just basic high school reading and writing skills.

▲

analog31 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not for lack of trying. People are definitely trying to find better ways of finding stronger candidates earlier. People are trying to gain a more precise understanding of disease mechanisms.

There are breakthroughs that I could have never imagined such as mRNA vaccines.

	▲	calf 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I would have to reread the piece carefully but I don't think "lack of trying by Biopharma" is consistent with the author's main argument. Because he is still being somewhat critical of the way it is currently done (why he cites the other industries). I simply disagree with his final sentence since it requires a different set of essay arguments, and also is subjective in the way say a political centrist might say "there is no alternative to fossil fuels" etc.