Prop 15: Armstrong versus Trowbridge
So someone who’s wife died of cancer must have a pretty good reason to be against Proposition 15, right? Lucky for “Texans for Fiscal Responsibility” that they were able to find someone who had an experience with cancer other than owning stock in a drug company to argue it’s case. Given the arguments Trowbridge makes, I don’t think they picked him for his reasoning abilities although the PhD looks good.
The average cost of getting a cancer drug through the FDA’s clearance process is now $1.4 billion, roughly $700 million for research and development and $700 million for clinical trials. And it takes an average of eight years for a drug to gain approval through the FDA’s Phases 1, 2 and 3 of clinical trials. Were the full $3 billion given tomorrow to Proposition 15’s newly proposed Cancer Prevention and Research Institute, the bond issue could fund only two drugs that would take nearly a decade for market approval. And they’d better both work, without a flaw or hitch.
These types of “arguments” drive me nuts. First, let me say that there are very legitimate reasons for being against Proposition 15. You can find some at the League of Women’s Voters website. However, the fact that the bond would only fund two drugs that wouldn’t be ready for more than a decade isn’t one of them.
Give me a break. The bond is to fund basic research that lots of companies would use to develop cancer drugs and therapies. The state isn’t going to research, develop, and market one specific drug. The state will be out of the picture long before the drug reaches phase 1 and the FDA approval process and Trowbridge knows it. But doesn’t it sound much more ridiculous to be spending $3 billion on two drugs that “might” work after ten years?
Trowbridge could have made many reasonable arguments against the proposition but goes for the flash counting on his audience not stopping to think about it. And because he’s going for the “effect” he doesn’t care about any sort of consistency or logic of his arguments. See, we’re only going to fund two drugs but later he talks about how the state would share it’s advances with other states. I thought we’re just going to be developing and selling two drugs–what is there to share?
And while there is much to improve at the FDA regardless of your political leanings that doesn’t have anything to do with the bond. Even if Texas could do something about the process, which it can’t, it wouldn’t do anything to help the goal of developing a cancer therapy industry in Texas.
If you think the money for Proposition 15 could better be used by spending directly on improving the health care of Texans, vote against it. If you think Texas could improve it’s higher education research centers by focusing on developing our own PhDs rather than having to recruit from out of state, vote for Proposition 15. If you think the government shouldn’t be involved in economic development, vote against Proposition 15.
But don’t vote against it because it will only “produce” two drugs or the FDA process is less than desirable.
Technorati Tags: Proposition 15, Ronald Trowbridge, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, Empower Texas
Filed under: Empower Texas, Proposition 15, Ronald Trowbridge, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility
