Now I am not a scientist, but I think SAS had a valid point. All the postings I have read relate to R&D costs, not Manufacturing - which is what SAS was referring too.

So yes SAS was right, it cost them pennies to make and the NHS is paying bulk costs on those products. Which are then in turn subsidised by the general public at a cost of £6.95 (I think) PER ITEM. So for someone like me who has at least 4 different items a month, that's nearly £30 a month I have to find.

I never actually read your comment, didn't have the time really!!

So, who should pay the R&D costs?

You earnt it - why not use it. Its the only degree that indicates that you have it and it still has the rarity value to justify it. It works wonders on bank managers and medics and even works sometimes on policemen if you want a 30 minute rather than a two hour response........
Last edited by thenetworkbabe : 21-04-2007 at 03:27

Erm, the company wishing to develop the product....just like any other type of business who develop ideas to be sold. I am sure Dyson didn't begrudge the R&D costs he had for his product or Eddison when he researched electricity. Not to mention poor Alexander Graham Bell, who is hardly reaping the rewards of his hard work with the royalties from the telecommunications industry.

IMO the top 5 industries financially -

Petroleum
Finance (Banking mostly)
Pharmaceutical
Telecoms
IT/IS

Hence is it not right that they should recover R&D costs?

If these exceed manufacuting costs (depending of course on sales volumes), then what is the problem?

But the R&D costs have to be paid, so it is wrong to exclude them.

The high profits of the companies reflect the high risks.

Yje one thing that I didn't like about Sophie was the way when each time she mentioned she was a Quantum Physicist, she paused waiting for a reaction.
She even did it on the "Your Fired" show.

I too have letters after my name but rarely use them and yes they are from a proper professional body and don't spell out something rude!!!
Last edited by amysmum : 21-04-2007 at 18:11

The economics are different though, if you make a TV you sell millions and there is little research - basically a new case and a few new features. The drugs industry has to try and find things for markets that may be small, when the research has to start from the basicsof working out whats going wrong and they also have to finance the development and trials of all the vast majority of drugs that don't work.


The NHS prepayment card costs far less - you should look at that if you havn't already - I think its 90 something pounds for all the medication for a whole year and you can make it last 14 months if you time the subscription renewals right.

The prescription charge is an average amount in so far as it has any logic - some medicines cost far far more (Mum has one that cost £8 a day) and its partly intended to stop people getting things that are cheaper in Boots on the NHS

okay, I am a scientist, so lets get a few things straight here.

most drugs do not cost 'pennies' to make

the costs involved in developing and bringing a drug to market are huge.

the pharma industry is highly price regulated, no-one tells Alan Sugar how much he is allowed to sell his crappy devices for, or when he is allowed to increase his prices.

the prescription charge to which you refer is set by the government, not the pharma industry, and in some cases does not go anywhere near covering the cost of the drug to the NHS, whilst in others it far exceeds the drug cost.

finally, if you are getting four items per month and pay for your scripts, you should invest in a pre-payment certificate, which will work out much cheaper for you.