• catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I don’t think UCLA is going to produce retail products themselves.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      They could always make the research and processes public domain, so no one person can unilaterally profit.

      But that’s not what they did, and that’s the problem.

        • Telorand@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          59
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Of course not, which is why they’re publicly funded. That’s the issue. They’re using public funds to make private profits.

            • Telorand@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              15 hours ago

              License and release it into the public domain: research, methods, processes, patents—the whole deal.

              Privatizing medicine, even elective medicine, just ensures predation.

              • catloaf@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                14 hours ago

                I’m not following. Making the results public domain doesn’t prohibit private companies from manufacturing for profit.

                • Telorand@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  14 hours ago

                  No, you got it. It’s not about prohibiting profit, it’s about preventing the exclusive ability to profit.

                  Think of generic medicines (in the US) versus brand equivalents and how vast their cost difference is.

                  • catloaf@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    12 hours ago

                    Which is reasonable in principle, but when they sell the exclusivity, they’re and to put that money back into their research expenses.

                    I’m okay with public money going to funding research projects that become private profit for a limited time. I’m a capitalist system, which is what we’re operating in, this seems to be the most effective. Government partially funds otherwise unprofitable R&D, companies make the product, and ordinary people are able to buy it at reasonable prices, and once exclusivity ends, anyone can make it.