Ask HN: Why can't we use bug bounties for pharmaceuticals company?

Coming up with a candidate molecule is the easy part. It has a 1 in 1000 chance of running the gauntlet to the point where you would do human testing. You will have to give the drug to 1000s of people and monitor their condition. Then you will have to figure out how to manufacture the molecule at scale.

The status quo is a remarkably good match to the requirements of drug development.

You have to not only pay for the blockbuster drug but you have to pay for all the failures.

Assuming there is a megafund that pays for the development. Why would a for profit pharma company do this? There is no profit to be made once the development is done?

Well, a computer bug is easy to verify. It is typically: your thing is broken and here I show that it is broken. A pharma "bug bounty" requires a whole heck of a lot of testing. It is a different question and answer: We do not have this, can someone make it? Sure, I made it: but did you test it on humans? Were there side effects? etc. bug bounties are like crypto mining in the sense that you don't do anything except find faults. Pharma discovery is all about discovery.

I think you overestimate the amount that can be raised, i.e $10bn. It is really hard to raise those type of amounts, even with crowdfunding, without rich countries. Especially when the cash ends up sitting there.

If it was committed but you could use it until the bounty was met then that's different. But then you end up back at the old pricing model.

I think you don't understand how remarkably difficult it is to not only find a new drug/treatment, but also to then prove it's "safe" [enough] to market

20 years ago, the average cost of developing ONE new drug (counting failed attempts along the way, testing, certification, etc etc) was north of $1 billion US

I guarantee it hasn't gotten cheaper in the meantime