How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist - <AUTHOR> http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/ <comment><USER2> I love this kind of site. Not that you can't scour up the content yourself using Google, but here's the thing... when you're trying to "teach yourself" something complex, one of the challenges you run into (in my experience) is understanding the order of the dependencies for prerequisites and sub-topics. And nothing is more frustrating than trying to read a book or a paper and feeling totally lost because you're missing _something_ that you should have learned first, but you don't even know exactly what the "something" is. :-(

As someone who considers himself something of an autodidact and who is always trying to learn new stuff, I really appreciate a resource that can point at a bunch of stuff and say (even in an approximate sense) "do this in this order". It really does make a difference.

<comment><USER3> I totally agree! If anybody knows of something similar for artificial general intelligence I'm all ears, currently in the process of reading up on it.

<comment><USER4> To borrow Prof. 't Hooft's imagery, I imagine that GAI would be right at the top of a skyscraper whose lower levels consist of mathematics, cognitive science, and computer science at increasing levels of sophistication.

Beginning your study of cognitive/computer science with GAI could be frustrating and fruitless, just as would be beginning your study of physics with superstring theory.

There are probably well-written and interesting GAI books/articles for laypeople, though, analogous to Brian Greene's excellent books on string theory.

<comment><USER3> Your response is totally understandable given my (very clumsy) comment. Let me make myself more clear; I'm in the process of reading up on what material one should study to set oneself up to ultimately be able to consider AGI research as a career choice.

You say "mathematics, cognitive science, and computer science at increasing levels of sophistication.". That's probably true, I'd recon a fair bit of biology, chemistry and physics is most likely also needed.

My question, though, is what specific branches of said subjects?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The most profound thing that the internet can do for the world is create a single monolithic repository of documents that is designed to take a dedicated reader from basic principles of math to a high degree of understanding in any subject. This is such an easy task compared to all of the other projects that happen on the internet, it is astonishing that we don't have anything like it yet. Wikipedia comes close. Khan Academy might become what I just described after they add more content. But nothing really hits the nail on the head yet. If Facebook spent a few billion on it then we would have it. It's so fucking simple. I would trade in Instagram many, many times over in exchange for such a repository. It is one of the easiest things to do and out of all the things we could do has the greatest impact on society and yet it has not been done. Amazing.

<comment><USER6> I think you drastically underestimate the difficulty of putting together quality curricula.

<comment><USER7> But the point is that we only need to do it once. (As opposed to the current way, where every school/university creates one anew).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The most important part of this is to do the problems!

After a PhD in theoretical physics then 20 years as a s/w developer I decided to get some of my chops back. You can read and nod about stuff but until you face a blank sheet of paper you don't know if you really understood.

+1 for Penrose's "Road to Reality"

Also a huge fan of Eric Poisson's lectures (basically free textbooks) [http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/poisson/research/notes.html](http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/poisson/research/notes.html)

Short description of getting my chops back: [http://nbodyphysics.com/blog/2015/02/28/learn-physics- with-t...](http://nbodyphysics.com/blog/2015/02/28/learn-physics-with-this- one-trick/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Man, t'Hooft is upping his design game! It looks mutch nicer than the previous versions which looked like they predated his nobel prize.

<comment><USER10> Yep. For everyone interested, this is the old version:

[http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html](http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html)

<comment><USER11> Wow! That reads like a Dr. Bronners bottle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm happy to see that there is someone who is trying to help those who don't want to or can't go the traditional route of undergrad => grad school. Certainly I'm sure there are many others like me who have a strong, but amateur interest in a subject. Here I mean amateur in the sense that it is unpaid and done only out of love, as opposed to some measure of skill.

Sadly I have no intention of studying theoretical physics. If anyone could point me towards something for theoretical computer science and algorithms I would be most grateful

<comment> T-A > If anyone could point me towards something for theoretical computer science > and algorithms

Cheap trick: google up university course pages like [1], look at the syllabus and get the books listed. MIT's OpenCourseware has lots of stuff [2].

[1] [http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~aho/cs3261/](http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~aho/cs3261/)

[2] [http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and- comput...](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer- science/)

<comment><USER12> Hey thanks for the suggestion. I actually use this strategy already, but the issue is that this only tells you what the general stuff most people will learn is. As far as I know this doesn't help with finding what the current problems are in the field.

However, I think that professors generally are very willing to help people who are interested, even if you aren't a student. Actually as far as I can tell usually they don't even ask if you are a student.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13>
        Greek letters are used a lot. Learn their names,
        otherwise you make a fool of yourself when giving
        an oral presentation

One thing that surprised the heck out of me is that we don't pronounce Greek letters like the Greeks do.

Example: tau sounds something like taf in Greek.

(that's all I got :-)

<comment><USER4> I speak reasonably fluent Greek (family language), and took a course in Classical Greek when I was in school. My professor explained that the pronunciations used in mathematics (tau, beta, mu...) differ from the Modern Greek versions (taf, veeta, mee...) because the former are the (conjectured) pronunciations used in the classical language. A large source of evidence for the pronunciation of Classical Greek is the transliteration of Greek words in to other languages during that period, especially into Latin. The whole language is pronounced very differently, not just the alphabet.

As a side note, that class was absurdly easy because I already knew almost all the vocabulary. The classical grammar is quite different though, and more complicated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Has anyone here ever read or worked through Hrabovsky and Susskind's _The Theoretical Minimum: What You Need to Know to Start Doing Physics_? Same premise as this, I gather, but a whole book.

<comment><USER15> For anyone who wants to read this. The book was rebranded. It's "Classical Mechanics - TTM" (this used to be called TTM only) now and there's also a "Quantum Mechanics - TTM". I have both of them on my nightstand but only browsed so far. Seems good at first glance. Susskind's Stanford classes for laypeople were great so I expect the books to be good as well :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A classic; but still a very recommended series are the Feynman Lectures on Physics: [http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/](http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Unfortunately, the section on Plasma Physics is rather sparse.

Introduction to Plasma Physics by Francis F. Chen and Fundamentals of Plasma Physics by Paul Bellan are good next-step texts, and this crowd in particular might enjoy Birdsall and Langdon's Plasma Physics Via Computer Simulation

Also on the computational topic, Kane S. Yee's 1966 paper "Numerical Solution..."

</comment><comment><USER18> Wow, I originally clicked on the article thinking it was tongue-in-cheek, but it's fantastic! Glad to see that someone is taking time to help others (like me)

<comment><USER19> Same here. It's actually a really good post!

Regarding his comment about hearing from amateurs who think they've solved the world, that is something I've heard from a lot of physics professors, that they get a lot of emails with crazy stuff like this: [http://i.imgur.com/QTt6ZTq.gif](http://i.imgur.com/QTt6ZTq.gif)

Why does that happen in physics and not chemistry, bio, econ, comsci or any other subject?

<comment><USER20> Everyone's an armchair economist so I wouldn't count econ out.

I think that math/physics are more accessible to the layman. I know where to go if I want to get deeper into this subject.

I really don't know how to start becoming an amateur chemist or biologist. I've wanted to learn more about synthetic biology and gene therapy, but it's not as simple as cracking open a math book or going to a dev bootcamp. I wish these resources existed though! My best guess is because exploring chem and bio have bigger resource requirements like lab space.

<comment><USER21> I think math/physics are _less_ accessible to the layperson, but _more_ subject to Dunning-Kruger. There are so many popular accounts of quantum this and string that in the media that a lot of the population seems to feel qualified to hold an opinion on anything quantum-y. ("It's on TV" => "I'm encouraged to have an opinion about it.")

In reality it's literally impossible for most people to imagine how hard the math is - because an undergrad physics or engineering degree is barely even a warm-up for it.

I'd love to see a TV show that made it clear just how challenging the math is without reducing it to the usual storytelling.

Popularisation can be great, but maybe it would be good to get a realistic appreciation for the raw version into the public narrative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Very cool project.

Another interesting resource would be Penrose's book: "The road to reality".

It starts with basic maths and go all the way up to relativity and the standard model.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality)

</comment><comment><USER23> As a Philomath, this site is an oasis on the Internet. True, you may be able to grasp what this page tries to accomplish with enough determination.

But, someone sharing their knowledge and path in a no-nonsense approach, sure helps a lot.

Are there any other similar guides for other fields?

<comment><USER24> I'm personally interested in a guide like this for economics... if anyone knows of one. It can be a book I guess...

<comment><USER25> Consider looking at this-

[https://sayloracademy.zendesk.com/hc/en- us/articles/20904185...](https://sayloracademy.zendesk.com/hc/en- us/articles/209041857-Archive-Majors-Courses-Requirements#econ)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is there a site anything like this for mathimatics?

<comment><USER27> Somehow "mathematics" seems much broader than "theoretical physicist."

But here's a simple starting point: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Mathematics)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Off topic: This seems to be an odd emphasis on the word "good". Can a native English speaker confirm?

<comment><USER29> I agree that use of "good" is questionable here. One would think that without the skills mentioned, one wouldn't be a theoretical physicist _at all_. (Is every person who lacks these skills a "bad theoretical physicist"? Only in a vacuous sense.)

That said, I think we should interpret "how to become a good theoretical physicist" as "how to gain the competencies that are expected of s theoretical physicist."

<comment><USER30> That's is what he means by good: one with enough competence in the field to do actually useful work. If you manage to do useful work in physics, that work could translate into a Nobel Prize just as easily as any other useful work.

A bad theoretical physicist is one who only understands enough to sound smart to their friends. AKA, a crank.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> That is something else, really love this idea. Is there anything _exactly_ like that but for Computer Science?

</comment><comment><USER32> I find it strange that no one in this discussion seems to notice the dripping sarcasm...

<comment><USER33> What do you mean? :(

<comment><USER32> Basically the entirety of paragraph 3...

"set up only for those who wish to become theoretical physicists, not just ordinary ones" \--- use of 'ordinary' instead of 'experimental' is intentionally condescending, hopefully for sarcastic effect

"very best, those who are fully determined to earn their own Nobel Prize. If you are more modest than that" \--- I'm not sure if this is actual encouragement or a joke. But the following:

"finish those lousy schools first and follow the regular routes provided by educators and specialized -gogues who are so damn carefully chewing all those tiny portions before feeding them to you." \--- Must be a joke. Nobel prizes are not awarded to individuals these days, they go to collaborations. There is no way to get into a collaboration, or likely a PhD program without an undergraduate degree in Physics. Legally not allowed in many European countries to join a PhD program...

"More than rudimentary intelligence is assumed to be present, because ordinary students can master this material only when assisted by patient teachers." \--- if this isn't sarcasm, then this guy is a monstrous prick who just decided to insult the 'rudimentary' intelligence of all Physics undergrads who deigned to actually attend college. Again with the 'ordinary'.

The opening paragraph continues the authors apparent disdain for school in general:

"But what if you are still young, at School, and before being admitted at a University, you have to endure the childish anecdotes that they call science there? What if you are older, and you are not at all looking forward to join those noisy crowds of young students?"

Which is a bit humerus considering the importance he himself places on fundamentals with:

"solid foundations in elementary mathematics and notions of classical (pre-20th century) physics. Don't think that pre-20th century physics is "irrelevant""

If it isn't sarcasm, then I have no idea why the author has decided to be so acerbic in his notation. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't actually mean to insult basically the 99% of physicists who don't show up in "Brilliant Mind"-esque movies.

edit: From his CV:

* Gymnasium-Beta, Dalton Lyceum, The Hague, 1964 * Physics and Mathematics, University of Utrecht * Kandidaatsexamen N1, 4 July 1966 * Doctoraal examen Theoretical Physics, 10 October 1969 * Promotie (PhD thesis) on the subject "Renormalization Procedure for Yang-Mills fields", 1 March 1972

i.e. He did basically all this stuff he is brushing off as worthless. As in going to classes, with teachers, at an undergraduate university, before applying for a PhD program.

<comment><USER34> You are misreading anger where there is slightly ascerbic honesty:

> "set up only for those who wish to become theoretical physicists, not just > ordinary ones" -> \-- use of 'ordinary' instead of 'experimental' is > intentionally condescending, hopefully for sarcastic effect

If you'd finished the sentence, you'd see: "but the very best, those who are fully determined to earn their own Nobel Prize. "

He is constrasting "ordinary" with "the very best". He isn't talking about experimental physics -- that's not his field.

> "finish those lousy schools first and follow the regular routes provided by > educators and specialized -gogues who are so damn carefully chewing all > those tiny portions before feeding them to you." \--- Must be a joke. Nobel > prizes are not awarded to individuals these days, they go to collaborations. > There is no way to get into a collaboration, or likely a PhD program without > an undergraduate degree in Physics. Legally not allowed in many European > countries to join a PhD program...

The beauty of theoretical physics (and math) is that you don't need any expensive equipment or overpriced tuition. Just books and people to talk to. Both of these are available free (except some books cost $$$), on the Internet. That's enough to get started.

> "More than rudimentary intelligence is assumed to be present, because > ordinary students can master this material only when assisted by patient > teachers." \--- if this isn't sarcasm, then this guy is a monstrous prick > who just decided to insult the 'rudimentary' intelligence of all Physics > undergrads who deigned to actually attend college. Again with the > 'ordinary'.

It's a simple fact: Smarter folks can get farther without as much guidance from teachers.

> The opening paragraph continues the authors apparent disdain for school in > general: "But what if you are still young, at School, and before being > admitted at a University, you have to endure the childish anecdotes that > they call science there? What if you are older, and you are not at all > looking forward to join those noisy crowds of young students?"

Common K-12 schools in many countries generally teach science and math very poorly. This is not a controversial statement.

Colleges are full of 18-22-yr-olds, many of whom are there to party; not a comfortable environment for some 30+ year olds.

> Which is a bit humerus

You seem to have a bone to pick.

> considering the importance he himself places on fundamentals with: "solid > foundations in elementary mathematics and notions of classical (pre-20th > century) physics. Don't think that pre-20th century physics is "irrelevant""

What does that have to do with the high school and college learning experience?

>i .e. He did basically all this stuff he is brushing off as worthless. As in going to classes, with teachers, at an undergraduate university, before applying for a PhD program.

The into goes to lengths to explain the sort of person who doesn't fit into school, and would benefit from an autodidactic alternative. For everyone else...there's school. I don't know why you have such a chip against the possibility of thriving outside of college... too much student loans got you sour grapse?

<comment><USER32> I'm an experimental physicist who did an undergraduate before my PhD and had to fight tooth and nail for my grades and did all that petty nonsense like going to class and after school tutoring and such. I'm not a rockstar, but I'm not a joke either -- I would give myself a "B" rating -- I definitely don't struggle for fellowships, but I'm not Nobel material.

I know from the inside that _these_ actions are the most probable path to success. If some hot shot high school student reads his note, I can see them deciding that they are "brilliant mind" material and then start pursuing this course of action seriously. In my opinion that is a borderline surefire path to failure. College campus is _the_ place to learn physics: you learn physics from casual bar discussions about the fluid dynamics of beer, telling a pretty girl why stars twinkle and planets don't, explaining to stoners why cigarette smoke is blue off the cig and then grey when you exhale, pre-exam pizza binges, adding strobe settings to your dorm lights, and late night campus laser graffiti with your mates and professors. Not from lone wolfing down a textbook with a blackboard.

It's perfectly possible for him to convey his message without "ordinary", "childish", "noisy", "rudimentary", "tiny portions" etc. And if he's just putting together a guidebook for entertaining your interest in Physics, then that's cool. But saying this is the way to get a Nobel is ridiculous... hence my original comment about dripping sarcasm.

Also my original comment was just getting down voted (and someone asked for clarification) so I expounded.

And no, I got a ride through college.

<comment><USER35> You're right that Professor 't Hooft is being sarcastic but you've got the wrong target.

He's not aiming this at practicing physicists. He says early on that, if you want to be a physicist, you should enroll at a University. He says in the Questions section that you'll eventually need a degree.

This is aimed at people who can't or won't. The sarcasm is intended to appeal to the "well intended but totally useless" amateur physicists that regularly send him crackpot theories. It's a common refrain from such individuals that they are held back by the establishment.

What he's trying to convey is the amount of information that one needs to master to be taken seriously as a theoretical physicist. His intention is both to put off those that have read a popular science book and now know it all as well as encouraging those that are actually serious by giving them some structure to their learning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm surprised to see no explicit mention of differential geometry.

<comment><USER37> Agreed. But there are many implicit mentions. Lots of physicists pick it up on the side in other subjects, which probably isn't ideal.

<comment><USER38> Probably the book by Nakahara is most people's first stop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> this is a great site. it really makes a good case why no one should want to be a (good) physicist. reading this stuff takes decades i should think.

<comment><USER40> Well I want to be a good physicist and I appreciate that it will take me years, maybe decades of reading. That's what's necessary to catch up to what we know. It's tough going but equally rewarding to learn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This is awesome. I like his no-nonsense approach.

</comment><comment><USER26> Is there a site like this for mathimatics?

<comment><USER25> How to Become a Pure Mathematician (or Statistician): a List of Undergraduate and Basic Graduate Textbooks and Lecture Notes - the blog

[http://hbpms.blogspot.com/](http://hbpms.blogspot.com/)

For a lot of other stuff check out Saylor.org's old 'major's page:

[https://sayloracademy.zendesk.com/hc/en- us/articles/20904185...](https://sayloracademy.zendesk.com/hc/en- us/articles/209041857-Archive-Majors-Courses-Requirements)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I prefer the way Facebook parses the title, as originally written: GOOD Theoretical Physicist.

Reminds me of GOOD Music [0]

[0]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOOD_Music](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOOD_Music))

</comment><comment><USER43> Wow!!

I can tell you of _my own experiences_. I had the extreme luck of having excellent teachers around me. ... It helped me all the way to earn a _Nobel Prize_.

But I didn't have _internet_. I am going to try to be _your teacher_.

It is presently set up _only for those_ who wish to become theoretical physicists, not just ordinary ones,

but the very best, those who are fully determined to earn their own _Nobel Prize._

This is a site for _ambitious people_.

I am sure that _anyone can do this_ , if one _is gifted_ with a _certain amount_ of _intelligence_ , _interest_ and _determination_.</comment>


A new drug costs $1,125 per pill and is about to break sales records - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/19/this-drug-costs-1125-per-pill-and-is-about-to-shatter-sales-records/ <comment><USER2> Is it only me that finds it depressing that modern journalism would try to stir a controversy around the drug's price instead of celebrating a new and better cure for a disease that only had much worse, and no less expensive, cures in the past?

<comment><USER3> If the comment section is to be believed, this was in large part funded by the government and a good example of "socialized costs, privatized profits". So, no? It seems perfectly apt.

<comment><USER4> It's a little different than that. The first drug, Solvadi, was developed by the company Pharmasset. Pharmasset did get some government grants to develop Solvadi, though the cost to develop the drug was much higher than the amount of the grants.

Gilead paid a massive amount to buy out Pharmasset with the plan of recouping the elevated buyout costs by charging a huge sum for Solvadi. They could have paid much less to buy out Pharmasset and charged far less for the drug, but chose profit over any other interest. Pharmasset had been planning to sell Sovaldi (and the new drug) for a tiny fraction of what Gilead is now charging.

The new drug, Harvoni, is a refinement of Sovaldi Pharmasset was working on. While Gilead is already fairly close to recouping their buyout money, they are charging even more for Harvoni.

The costs are being taken from the public in that many Hep. C patients are too poor to have insurance so Medicaid is giving a huge amount of cash to Gilead, though the initial research grants were only around $1 mil.

<comment><USER5> I think the price of a drug is decoupled from the cost of developing/acquiring the rights to that drug.

Whether a drug cost $1 or $1 billion to develop, the seller/marketer will try to charge whatever the market can bear to maximize revenue (which could still result in a loss). They aren't trying to recoup $1.1 or $1.1b respectively, they're going for the max in either case.

<comment><USER6> A good friend of mine works in pharmaceutical pricing and this is exactly how works. You price to what the market will bear. The "market" includes physicians, insurance companies, the gov't and patients.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Two thoughts about these Hep C drugs. First, I agree we should celebrate the advent of the potential cure for a devastating viral disease.

Second, while the costs are considerable, expense is not out of line with many other treatments that are not making the headlines. Check into the costs of renal transplantation. And my wife recently had a cataract replaced, a commonplace procedure, the final bill was >$5000.

The issue is the _real total_ costs of treating vs. _not_ treating the disease. It's necessary to take into account the costs of doctor visits, medications, disability, loss of productivity, increased likelihood of illness among family members due to stress, among many other factors.

If a patient can be restored to adequate functionality, and after the Hep C treatment require no more than routine health care, the $84K might in fact be a bargain.

Until we get it clear that we must consider the true total costs of fully treating vs. not treating an illness, we will never be able to make rational decisions about structuring a health care system.

Unless proven otherwise, I'm convinced the system with the lowest _total cost_ is providing care that patients actually need. We only make matters worse by the focus on "cutting health care costs" vs. reducing the total economic burden of illness.

<comment><USER8> I appreciate what you are trying to do, but I cannot agree with determining the cost of a drug based on potential loss of income/productivity. Should the CEOs therefore get first dips on life saving treatment because they have big impact on his/her employees? Do patients in developed countries have an economic right to better treatment first than people in developing countries? Are some lives worth more than others? I don't think we are ready to go down this route. Incidentally, a very expensive drug is posing these questions, implicitly. But explicit statements like yours are not politically practical or even humane. Ten years ago it was outrageous to hear a nurse to tell a kid's parents to pay up or watch their only child die.

<comment><USER9> That's not what parent comment is arguing at all. But I don't see why not. Money very likely correlates with value to society and would be a better heuristic than pure randomness - which is also unfair. Although hopefully it never becomes an issue of course - these hypothetical situations where we get to actually choose who lives and dies rarely happen in reality. And obviously it violates cultural values, so would not be a good idea to actually try to implement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> this is such a breakthrough in modern medicine.

this is a CURE of a longstanding disease, a disease which cuts off years of life expectancy of it victims.

there are more of them incoming, Hep C soon have a multitude of awesome drugs covering it. competition means drug prices will come down. the current massive price is a blip. at the very worst until the patent expires.

there is even more, cooler stuff in the pipelines right now. there is a leukemia drug that goes after a rare form of it - with survival rates in its patients now at 95+%. think about what this means.

after a glut, modern medicinal research has kicked into high gear. the FDA has a fast track program now. 10 years from now we'll be living in a very different world.

<comment><USER11> > 10 years from now we'll be living in a very different world.

Only if you are rich enough to afford it. That is where the outrage comes from - in most of the world healthcare and a right to life is considered a human right. In the US, current IP rights and drug policy will enable the exploitation of anyone who gets any major disease for all their are worth and then you can hang them out to die without treatment.

It isn't the fault of the drug manufacturers though, they are profit seeking and work in their investors interests, who gave millions over years or decades and expect returns. You can and should blame the legal framework that prevents free market drug manufacturing through monopoly patents that lets people die because they cannot afford new drugs to cure their ailments.

<comment><USER12> Do the monopoly patents let people die because they can't afford the drugs, or do they save lives because they incentivize the research to create the drugs in the first place?

<comment><USER13> It's possible for them to do both.

It's also possible to imagine a system that does the good one without the bad one.

<comment><USER14> Research : huge investment required. Very few patients (ie. voters) are clamoring for it. Very easy to cut as part of public policy.

Treatment : not a huge cost (esp. not per-patient), but has to be bourne a billion times over. Extremely expensive in total (far, far more than research, but ...). Even tiny cuts will result in massive protests (see Europe every few weeks since 2009 or so). Various interests with large amount of people want to see this cost going up : docters, medical personnel, patients.

Getting public money to do healthcare will result in next to no research, and ever more, ever less effective treatment. This is not to say there won't be advancements, just really, really slow ones. Because nobody really sees the potential (or sees it as bad to some extent, e.g. medical personnel) nobody will even miss the research. Also, people kind of like that only universities do the research, but never, ever bring drugs to patients, and only very rarely do they bring treatments to patients.

Getting private money to healthcare runs afoul of one of the basic axioms of the free market : choice and competition. In medicine there is, in quite a few cases, no choice (as illustrated above. Hep C infected ? You have 2 choices : $100k or $100k, or death of course).

It doesn't seem, economically speaking, that you can do both.

<comment><USER13> That's not an economic argument, it's a political one. You're saying there's no political will to publicly fund research at current levels. I do agree with your analysis of the status quo, but that status quo can change just as soon as voter attitudes change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is getting depressingly common. I don't know the answer to this problem. There is a super expensive treatment for cystic fibrosis that only helps about 5% of the population and is something like a quarter million dollars a year and is not a cure. People with CF almost never have that kind of money. Unless they were born into a very wealthy family, having one family member with CF is such a huge financial and practical burden on the family that most folks with this in the family are not financially comfortable. Some of them are incredibly destitute.

I get that these very expensive pills are sort of "miracle cures" and the price is intended to reflect that fact and cover the high costs of development and all that, but this is a fundamentally broken system. I don't know what the world needs to do here, but this is just crazy.

<comment><USER16> Some of that cost got funneled back into CF research:

[http://www.cff.org/aboutCFFoundation/NewsEvents/11-19-Expans...](http://www.cff.org/aboutCFFoundation/NewsEvents/11-19-Expansion- of-Research-and-Programs.cfm)

(I guess you mean Ivacaftor, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation sold their royalty rights for $3.3 billion.)

To a large extent, the insurance companies are setting the prices on these drugs (getting charged whatever the max they will pay). I think part of the solution might be somewhat counter intuitive, to throw even more resources at the early stage research, with the hope that there is more competition by the time things make it to patients.

<comment><USER15> According to other people more in-the-know than I am, the CF Foundation is basically in bed with big pharma. They are not really looking for better care for people with CF. They are looking specifically for better _drugs._ So, most likely, that money is being funneled back into more drug research -- more of this type thing. I am not so sure that's really some kind of silver lining.

<comment><USER16> I posted the cost part of the comment because I was pondering structural incentives and in that context, found out that particular drug had a foundation partner. I wasn't necessarily trying to weigh in on the good or the bad of it.

Short of gene therapy, addressing the defective protein is pretty much going to be done with drugs, so I don't find it particularly telling that they are putting resources there. CFF does seem to be involved in clinical care (but I'm not informed enough to figure out how much of that is self promotion and how much is substantive).

Anyway, the main point I had intended was that the price isn't just a function of what the company wants it to be, the buyers have to be willing to pay it (which sounds gross when talking about health care, but national health systems and insurance companies do worry some about whether treatments are worth what they cost).

<comment><USER15> Hey, I am sending you an email.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Solvadi's patent is being challenged in India. I hope it is not granted, and generics come on board. A cure would cost about $120 instead of the $64-$80k will cost in the US.

If India is smart, they can turn it into well organized medical tourism. Come and see India, get cured, and save $60k.

<comment><USER18> Don't they have a valid patent? Why don't you think it should be granted?

<comment><USER19> Perhaps they're more concerned about human lives than maximizing corporate profits. I realize it's not a popular viewpoint.

<comment><USER18> If they are concerned then they should do the research. It's pretty lame to have someone else spend billions of dollars of their money then simply take their work. Companies wouldn't stay in business with your model, and we wouldn't get new medicines.

I would greatly welcome another option where governments or the public funded more medicines then licensed them cheaply.

<comment><USER20> Your point is of course correct within the confines of the current market system. Is the current system moral though? I would argue it isn't. The system is designed to bolster the rich's coffers (countries) and getting rich people healthy, whilst poor countries are unable to pay.

These countries can't afford to pay for such investment. The capital imbalance is just huge.

Here's my take on this: any drug that is developed by country A has to sell that drug at a rate related to countries B's GDP ratio to A, or allow an open generic license to country B. Thus, should a firm decide to charge $1000 a pill in the US, they have to charge a proportionate and fairer amount to a country like Bangladesh.

Whether better access to health services and drugs, many of these third world countries would start to move out of the more that they are currently in. Of course there a huge numbers of variables but I as a share holder would prefer not to see children dying of diseases that could be prevented if it wasn't expensive.

Naturally firms like Gilead are going to use market economics to determine the correct price for each country anyway. Something is better than nothing right? Generics are more a solution for long running patents, which I'm personally against when it comes to drug development.

<comment><USER18> You aren't offering any solution to other countries contributing to the development of new medicines.

India developed their Mars mission for $74 million dollars. That's a fraction of the US cost. Why can't they develop new medicines for a fraction of the cost? The idea is to increase research at a global level, and have everyone contribute.

<comment><USER11> I don't think there is an ethical financial model to fund drug research. It kind of has to be philanthropy to not deny the sick live saving treatment, especially since those most likely to be chronically ill are also more likely to be poor.

The only way I could see it working would be to have states guarantee a return to investors at some fixed rate of the cost to discover a new drug, and then buy the rights from them and release them public domain so anyone can manufacture it. But any kind of system like that, involving money taken through violent taxation and put through a bureaucratic blender of national politics, is bound for exploitation.

I doubt that in an IP free world all drug research would stop. Those with a vested interest and the charitable could and would fund their own research. One thing to consider is that modern drug research is not directed towards that which is hard or _needed_ , but that which is profitable and wanted. That is why we see a half dozen erection drugs each year yet there has to be viral marketing campaigns for ALS research.

<comment><USER18> India has the 10th largest GDP in the world.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nom...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(nominal\))

They will soon have the largest population, if the don't already. It's middle class isn't as large as the U.S., but it's growing quickly.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_India](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living_in_India)

Why wouldn't they want to invest into research to cure common diseases?

<comment><USER11> Because those most likely to be infected are those with the least political influence. Globally, the rich are much less likely to get sick, because they live in much more sanitary environments, expose themselves to infection less, and have consistent top tier healthcare to prevent infection.

Thus the people who need it least are those who both have the money to potentially fund it themselves and the social power to make representatives care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a bad business plan. Sure, they make a lot of money now, but they are curing all of their customers. Soon they won't have any left.

Typical shortsighted focus on profits this quarter, without a sustainable business model.

<comment><USER22> I assume this is a snark comment, but it is a fascinating discussion.

Typically it's claimed big pharma & co. intentionally withhold, avoid creating, or would never pursue cures because it's not good for business. Then when they finally produce a cure, people get upset about the price. Short of being a non-profit or charity, they're damned if they do / don't.

I think if Gilead can input $1 billion for development, and yield $100 billion on a cure (minus some comparatively modest marketing expenses), that's an excellent business model. ($80k * 1.x million hep c patients in the US that get their cure; assuming only a portion of the 3.x million in the US end up taking Gilead's drugs)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> My wife's current medication:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemtuzumab](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alemtuzumab)

When sold to treat MS it has a 10000 x markup over the same medication sold to treat cancer.

<comment><USER6> The reason for this is that you can't have two different prices for two different diseases when it's the same drug. The company decided to stop selling it for cancer (they now give it away for free) to optimize for the MS market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Does anyone know the cost of development?

</comment><comment><USER25> For a second, I was hoping this was European and it was 1 and 1/8th dollars.

<comment><USER26> Funny you should mention that, as in the United Kingdom each pill would only cost the end user ~29p (about half a dollar) thanks to our National Health Service capping the price of a prescription.

Interestingly, it 'only' costs the equivalent of $650 per pill for the NHS to purchase [1], rather than the $1125 cited in the article. I expect it used its buying power to negotiate a more favourable price - yet another benefit of this nationalised, socialised health care system.

[1] According to the British National Formulary.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What would TV cop drama be about if drugs were legal? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> They would be about the criminal activities these gangs would migrate to, like kidnapping, extortion, bank robbery, human trafficking, cargo theft, animal contraband...

</comment><comment><USER3> Murder, Rape, GBH, Weapons Dealing, Police Corruption, Financial Crimes (doubt the last one but one can hope).

Pretty much like it is now I think.

<comment><USER4> CSI: SEC sounds like a thrill a minute.

<comment><USER3> I'd watch a crime show (as long as it wasn't CSI based..) about financial crimes... but then I'm a bit weird, I watch bloomberg news for background noise.

<comment><USER5> Billions on Showtime is kind of like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Serial killers, ghost hunting, fighting aliens</comment>


How and why LinkedIn is becoming an engineering powerhouse - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2013/03/03/how-and-why-linkedin-is-becoming-an-engineering-powerhouse/

<comment><USER2> I see some strong similarities between that of LinkedIn and Google/Amazon/Facebook in terms of how they're driving innovation. It'll be interesting to see what else they come up with in the next 18/36 months.</comment>


The social utility of hacker humor - <AUTHOR> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2520 <comment><USER2> Did Eric just rip-off pg?

Compare: <http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html>

> It is greatly to America's advantage that it is a congenial atmosphere for > the right sort of unruliness—that it is a home not just for the smart, but > for smart-alecks. And hackers are invariably smart-alecks. If we had a > national holiday, it would be April 1st. It says a great deal about our work > that we use the same word for a brilliant or a horribly cheesy solution. > When we cook one up we're not always 100% sure which kind it is. But as long > as it has the right sort of wrongness, that's a promising sign. It's odd > that people think of programming as precise and methodical. Computers are > precise and methodical. Hacking is something you do with a gleeful laugh.

<comment><USER3> Perhaps they're just independent observations of real phenomena?

<comment><USER4> If the phenomena are real, then it becomes very likely more than one author will comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> {Insert comment realizing despised OS/Compiler/App as long-running joke}</comment>


Making your NativeScript development easier, one snippet at a time - <AUTHOR> https://www.nativescript.org/blog/making-your-nativescript-development-easier-one-snippet-at-a-time <comment><USER2> > _XML helper snippets_

That phrase contains 2 of my least-favorite software words.</comment>