英语BP辩论反方二辩辩论稿

Documentserialnumber【UU89WT-UU98YT-UU8CB-UUUT-UUT108】英语BP辩论反方二辩辩论稿反方二辩：Thankyou,Mr.（Ms.）speaker.Ladiesandgentlemen,goodevening!Inthefirstpartofmyspeech,Iwouldliketomakemyrebuttal.Thepropseemtothinkthey'reprovidingextraincentivestoscientistsfromuniversitiesandresearchinstitutions,thereforeincreasinginnovation.Thisiswrong.Firstly,manyscientistsworkforpharmaceuticalcompaniesdirectly.Secondly,scientistsatuniversitiesandresearchinstitutionsarepaidbypharmaceuticalcompaniestoundertakeresearchforthem.WhyisthisimportantItmeansthatscientistsareactuallyharmedundertheproposition'smodel,nothelped.Whenpatentsareremoved,pharmaceuticalcompaniescannolongerearnmonopolyprofits.NowI’dliketoprovidemystatements.Forthefirstaspect,whywesavemorelivesFirstly,underourplanyoucanpayscientistsdoublethebonusestheygetpaidandstillgetthejobdonewaybelowthecurrentcost.Thisisbecausewewon’thavetopay$6-10millionayearfortheCEOofthefirminquestionorbillionsinpublicity.We’realsoprovidingincentivesforthesamecompaniestoresearchnoveldrugs.Ratherthanfretoverpricesremaininghighfor20yearstomakeaprofitwe'reallowingthemagenerousresearchanddevelopment-linkedprofitondelivery.Secondly,wehavethepreposterousclaimthatuniversityresearchisfundedbycorporations!ThePharmaceuticalResearchandManufacturersofAmerica,anindustrylobbygroup,estimatesthatprivateindustryfinancesonlyabout43%ofdrugdevelopment!Ourplanallowsforuniversitiesandgovernmentinstitutionstotakeonmoreresearchandevenprovidethemwithconcretebenefits.Thirdly,morethan69%ofthosewithHIVlackaccesstothemedicationtotreatit.Ratherthanpaythecurrentpricesforthat69%foraslongastheyneedthemwhatwedoispayfortheminadrasticallycheaperone-offpaymentthatwouldallowforgenericcopiestobemadeadinfinite.Thiswaywealsodon'tendorsecurrentpracticethatactivelydiscouragesinnovationbutinsteadcreateanewregimethattrulyrewardsitallowingeveryonetobenefitfromgenuinelynoveldrugs.Fourthly,theopphasarguedourplanwouldnotencouragecheaperdrugswiththesameeffectstobeproduced.Ofcoursenot!Ifwecreategenericdrugs,accessibletoallwhyneeda“new”drugthatdoesexactlythesameThisiswhathappensunderthestatusquo;companiescreatinguseless“me-toodrugs”oneaftertheotherratherthanresearchingintonoveldrugsthathavesomethingtooffer.Ratherthanseethislackofinnovationasaproblemtheyareofferingitssolutionasanargument.Inaddition,ifcompanieswithpatentschargeveryhighprices,thatcreatesamarketforcheaperdrugsforthatillness,soothercompaniescanmoveintothatmarket.Thismeansinnovationisencouraged,therearemoredrugsandthepriceisn'tanissueinthelongterm.Undertheprop'smodelitisnecessarythatgenericsaremoreprofitablethannewdrugsforacompanytoproduce,orelsenoneofthemwill,insteadgoingforthemassiveprizefornewdrugs.Ifgenericsaremorepopular,nonewdrugswillbeproduced,onlycopies.Forthesecondaspect,abolishingpatentsforlife-savingmedicineswouldnotdeclinethepriceofmedicines.Theprophavefoundedtheircaseontheideathatlotsofgenericproducerswillbeabletoproducedrugscheaplyifpatentsarebypassed.However,thereneedstobeamassiveincentivetogetthesedrugsdevelopedinthefirstplace.Theycostupto$800milliontogettomarket,andthismeanshugeamountsofinvestmentarerequired.Notonlydoesthisinvestmentneedtobepayedback,thereneedstobeapromiseofstrongprofittopayofftheriskofsuchahugeinvestmentbeingunsuccessful(mostdrugsnevergotomarket).Aspatentsprovidetheabilitytochargemonopolypricing,iftherewasnopatentforlife-savingdrugstherewouldneedtobeanevengreaterincentivetostopcompaniesproducingnon-lifesavingdrugsinstead.Whatthismeansisthatwhatevermodelthepropproposetoprovidetheseincentives,itwillalwaysbemoreexpensivethanallowingacompanytopatentaproduct,whichatleastmakesitasvaluableasanon-lifesavingdrug.Inconclusion,ifweabolishthosepatents,noonewouldcontinueresearchinganddevelopingnewmedicines,thus,abolishingpatentsforlife-savingmedicinesseemstosavemorelivesatthebeginning,itwouldkillmorelivesinthelongrun.