Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My husband is a cancer researcher with an MD/PhD. I don't know why the PP associates that with Big Pharma - most research is publicly funded and at NIH or other similar institutions.

Since we're in that world, we know plenty of kids who want to be doctors and scientists.

That's just wrong. The vast majority of drug funding is private, typically by industry, aka Big Pharma and investors.

You know who actually researches, develops and sells cancer drugs? Big pharma. And that's not a bad thing. It takes infrastructure to do the serious work of developing a new drug and getting it approved. New drugs have global clinical trials in dozens of countries, supply chains across dozens of countries, and then get approval in every country across the globe. Even research and development cuts across countries with different aspects being developed in different places, because companies go to the global experts leading cutting-edge science. There's a lot of complexity.

Some early research is done in academic centers and at universities, but NIH is not selling medicines. They are laying ground work, but there's still a ton of work to turn that into an actual medicine for patients.

I think you seriously underestimate how much of the foundational work is done on NIH funding. It isn't just 'some early research.' It's ALL of the mechanistic details and generally most of the preclinical work too. Even when companies get involved with a research compound or clinical grade compound in-hand, they aren't doing that type of research themselves. They're either contracting out to CROs, or developing CRADAs with research institutions.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that pharma/industry invests incredible money to get drugs to market. But that relies on scientists to lay a firm foundation of why and how to use the drug. And when that step is skipped, pharma is also at risk.

I'm a patent attorney with a PhD in chemistry and have spent years of my life reading lab notebooks chronicling the discovery of medicines. Yes, there is work done in academic and government labs, but it's not even close to a majority. Lots and lots of science on mechanisms and pathways is done in industry too. Most oncology drug preclinical work is done by industry, with it being an exception if a drug makes it that far in a govt lab.

I'm 100% supportive of funding science and think that funding is critically important. I just get really annoyed at the vilification of big pharma when they are making groundbreaking progress towards treating cancer more effectively, and hopefully finding cures. If a young person wants to work on curing cancer, they should absolutely consider working in pharma.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My husband is a cancer researcher with an MD/PhD. I don't know why the PP associates that with Big Pharma - most research is publicly funded and at NIH or other similar institutions.

Since we're in that world, we know plenty of kids who want to be doctors and scientists.

That's just wrong. The vast majority of drug funding is private, typically by industry, aka Big Pharma and investors.

You know who actually researches, develops and sells cancer drugs? Big pharma. And that's not a bad thing. It takes infrastructure to do the serious work of developing a new drug and getting it approved. New drugs have global clinical trials in dozens of countries, supply chains across dozens of countries, and then get approval in every country across the globe. Even research and development cuts across countries with different aspects being developed in different places, because companies go to the global experts leading cutting-edge science. There's a lot of complexity.

Some early research is done in academic centers and at universities, but NIH is not selling medicines. They are laying ground work, but there's still a ton of work to turn that into an actual medicine for patients.

I think you seriously underestimate how much of the foundational work is done on NIH funding. It isn't just 'some early research.' It's ALL of the mechanistic details and generally most of the preclinical work too. Even when companies get involved with a research compound or clinical grade compound in-hand, they aren't doing that type of research themselves. They're either contracting out to CROs, or developing CRADAs with research institutions.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that pharma/industry invests incredible money to get drugs to market. But that relies on scientists to lay a firm foundation of why and how to use the drug. And when that step is skipped, pharma is also at risk.

Anonymous wrote:It is a shame that the bright kids aren’t aiming to change the system and rather just feed it

But that’s capitalism. It rewards the production of money; not of ideas, sustainability, care, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My husband is a cancer researcher with an MD/PhD. I don't know why the PP associates that with Big Pharma - most research is publicly funded and at NIH or other similar institutions.

Since we're in that world, we know plenty of kids who want to be doctors and scientists.

That's just wrong. The vast majority of drug funding is private, typically by industry, aka Big Pharma and investors.

You know who actually researches, develops and sells cancer drugs? Big pharma. And that's not a bad thing. It takes infrastructure to do the serious work of developing a new drug and getting it approved. New drugs have global clinical trials in dozens of countries, supply chains across dozens of countries, and then get approval in every country across the globe. Even research and development cuts across countries with different aspects being developed in different places, because companies go to the global experts leading cutting-edge science. There's a lot of complexity.

Some early research is done in academic centers and at universities, but NIH is not selling medicines. They are laying ground work, but there's still a ton of work to turn that into an actual medicine for patients.

Anonymous wrote:

My husband is a cancer researcher with an MD/PhD. I don't know why the PP associates that with Big Pharma - most research is publicly funded and at NIH or other similar institutions.

Since we're in that world, we know plenty of kids who want to be doctors and scientists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You saw what they did to the NIH... why bother?

That will go back at some point when these corrupt incompetent men leave the White House.

I saw a documentary on the Thalidomide drug that was developed by ex-Nazi war criminals in the 1950s that helped pregnant women with nausea. It turned out to cause horrific birth defects where babies were born with no legs or arms or shortened misshapen arms. This started in Germany, it was then sold to England and Canada. The Nazi company knew of the side effect but kept it quiet because they were getting very rich.

Thanks to Dr. Frances Kelsey from the FDA, Thalidomide was never approved in the US.
In 1960, Dr. Kelsey halted the drug's approval process, citing inadequate safety data, which averted a major public health tragedy in the United States. She faced enormous pressure from the drug company and lobbyists along with bribes and death threats. She stayed strong.

Trump has gutted the FDA. Without hesitation thalidomide would be approved by Trump and he would have fired the doctors. We need doctors like Dr. Kelsey and scientists who will stay true. Young people have to bother. Plus if all anyone is doing is moving money around our economy will be shattered.

Saying "it will come back" does not give people comfort that they can build a successful and secure stable life for themselves and their family. The security of a lot of those fed and fed-adjacent or funded jobs is gone. Yes that impacts the next generation as well.

I am in a "passion" field and I hate it. The swings are awful. I'm depressed and I can't unplug from tht regular news or the nonstop news related to my area. I wish I worked on something I didn't care about -- accounting?? -- and the job was just a job and not part of the bigger political mess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TBH, it’s some nepo babies who still want to change the world for good. Strivers’ kids just want to be rich.

I almost vomited. You’re such an ugly person.

Anonymous wrote:I have been a teacher for 30 years. My kids are in finance, or heading there. They saw me work my ass off and struggle and they want a different path. I am thrilled.

Anonymous wrote:The students we know graduating from college have jobs in business, consulting, IB, and a few in engineering. Any more interesting new grad jobs that you know of?