反方一辩：
Respected judicators, Ladies and gentlemen, good evening!
In the first part of my speech, I would like to make my rebuttal. Patents do not costs lives, they save more.Our government side have proposed a radical solution to their problem: they want to ignore intellectual property, one of our most important constructs to encourage innovation. On the opposition, we believe the status quo of allowing a medicine company to patent something and profit from it is necessary for them to have an incentive and ability to create life-saving medicines now and in the future, and it is saving lives in the long-term that concerns us.
Now I’d like to provide my statements. This house would not abolish patents for life-saving medicines. For the first reason, it takes away the Incentive to Produce Life-saving medicines.Ron Pollack said,The pharmaceutical industry's repetitious cry that research and development would be curtailed if medicine prices are moderated is extraordinarily misleading.
Yes, research and development costs money. Yet only 14% of pharmaceuticals' budgets go to research and development. Reports have linked "high medicine prices to advertising, profits and enormous executive salaries. The report documents that medicine companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration.”
Firms are incentivized to undertake research in life-saving drugs because now they have a guaranteed return on their R&D investment. Regardless of the course of drug production and distribution they will be profit from their research.
In addition , Scientists are principally motivated by the desire for peer recognition and also by the fact that they want to have achieved something more with their lives than reduce some teenager’s pimples by 30%. We are not dissuading research into live-saving illnesses we’re invigorating it by offering inciting profit that is tied to results and is cost-effective.
Creating a brand new medicine requires enormous amounts of money and failed attempts, and therefore involves a large amount of risk. If a person can't be guaranteed some kind of control or return to that risk and expense, they are unlikely to want to invest in it. In particular, if a medicine company can make more money by patenting medicines that cure hair loss, they will take that option.
For the second aspect, consequences of the loss of incentives is awful.Medicine companies are trying to develop cures for cancer, diabetes and more, and will likely want to develop more cures for illnesses that come up in the future, as they did for swine flu, if they can get a return on the investment. If there is not a significant return to investment, a company will not bother to continue to research and develop these medicines. Even if the current medicines were released for generic development, lack of future medicines would cost far more lives in the long run, and save money on alternative treatments.
Furthermore, most things that cause illness, such as viruses and bacteria, develop so that they can resist medicines. We have seen this in the case of the increased ineffectiveness of antibiotics. Prop
