Chroniques patagones

Le prix Nobel de médecine ne couronnera pas les travaux d'un médecin cubain ! Les premiers prix Nobel 2006 viennent d'être annoncés : deux personnes partagent le Nobel de médecine, deux autres celui de physique et celui de chimie va au fils du prix Nobel de médecine 1959 (on imagine leurs discussions au coin du feu). Les cinq lauréats sont nord-américains. Grande nouveauté. Une grande partie du mérite revient aux universités nord-américaines, dont le moteur est la libre concurrence et dont la récompense est représentée par l'absorption des cerveaux les plus intelligents de la planète. Dans Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen explique pourquoi les États-Unis sont les leaders mondiaux dans le domaine de la santé :

In real terms, spending on American biomedical research has doubled since 1994.  By 2003, spending was up to $94.3 billion (there is no comparable number for Europe), with 57 percent of that coming from private industry.  The National Institutes of Health’s current annual research budget is $28 billion.  All European Union governments, in contrast, spent $3.7 billion in 2000, and since that time, Europe has not narrowed the research and development gap.  America spends more on research and development over all and on drugs in particular, even though the United States has a smaller population than the core European Union countries.  From 1989 to 2002, four times as much money was invested in private biotechnology companies in America than in Europe.

Dr. Thomas Boehm of Jerini, a biomedical research company in Berlin, titled his article in The Journal of Medical Marketing in 2005 “How Can We Explain the American Dominance in Biomedical Research and Development?” (ostina.org/downloads/pdfs/bridgesvol7_BoehmArticle.pdf) Dr. Boehm argues that the research environment in the United States, compared with Europe, is wealthier, more competitive, more meritocratic and more tolerant of waste and chaos.  He argues that these features lead to more medical discoveries.  About 400,000 European researchers are living in the United States, usually for superior financial compensation and research facilities.

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities.  The American government could use its size, or use the law, to bargain down health care prices, as many European governments have done.  In the short run, this would save money but in the longer run it would cost lives.

Medical innovations improve health and life expectancy in all wealthy countries, not just in the United States.  That is one reason American citizens do not live longer.  Furthermore, the lucrative United States health care market enhances research and development abroad and not just at home.