反方二辩：
Thank you,Mr.（Ms.）speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, good evening!
In the first part of my speech, I would like to make my rebuttal.The prop seem to think they're providing extra incentives to scientists from universities and research institutions, therefore increasing innovation. This is wrong. Firstly, many scientists work for pharmaceutical companies directly . Secondly, scientists at universities and research institutions are paid by pharmaceutical companies to undertake research for them. Why is this important? It means that scientists are actually harmed under the proposition's model, not helped. When patents are removed, pharmaceutical companies can no longer earn monopoly profits.
Now I’d like to provide my statements. For the first aspect, why we save more lives? Firstly, under our plan you can pay scientists double the bonuses they get paid and still get the job done way below the current cost. This is because we won’t have to pay $6-10 million a year for the CEO of the firm in question or billions in publicity. We’re also providing incentives for the same companies to research novel drugs. Rather than fret over prices remaining high for 20 years to make a profit we're allowing them a generous research and development-linked profit on delivery.
Secondly, we have the preposterous claim that university research is funded by corporations! The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry lobby group, estimates that private industry finances only about 43% of drug development! Our plan allows for universities and government institutions to take on more research and even provide them with concrete benefits.
1 / 3
Thirdly, more than 69% of those with HIV lack access to the medication to treat it. Rather than pay the current prices for that 69% for as long as they need them what we do is pay for them in a drastically cheaper one-off payment that would allow for generic copies to be made ad infinite. This way we also don't endorse current practice that actively discourages innovation but instead create a new regime that truly rewards it allowing everyone to benefit from genuinely novel drugs.
Fourthly, the opp has argued our plan would not encourage cheaper drugs with the same effects to be produced. Of course not! If we create generic drugs, accessible to all why need a “new” drug that does exactly the same? This is what happens under the status quo;companies creating useless “me-too drugs” one after the other rather than researching into novel drugs that have something to offer. Rather than see this lack of innovation as a problem they are offering its solution as an argument .
In addition, if companies with patents charge very high prices, that creates a market for cheaper drugs for that illness, so other companies can move into that market. This means innovation is encouraged, there are more drugs and the price isn't an issue in the long term. Under the prop's model it is necessary that generics are more profitable than new drugs for a company to produce, or else none of them will, instead going for the massive prize for new drugs. If generics are more popular, no new drugs will be produced, only copies
2 / 3
.
For the second aspect, abolishing patents for life-saving medicines would not decline the price of medicines.The prop have founded their case on the idea that lots of generic producers will be able to produce drugs cheaply if patents are bypassed. However, there needs to be a massive incentive to get these drugs developed in the first place. They cost up to $800 million to get to market, and this means huge amounts of investment are required. Not only does this investment need to be payed back, there needs to be a promise of strong profit to pay off the risk of such a huge investment being unsuccessful (most drugs never go to market). As patents provide the ability to charge monopoly pricing, if there was no patent for life-saving drugs there would need to be an even greater incentive to stop companies producing non-life saving drugs instead. What this means is that whatever model the prop propose to provide these incentives, it will always be more expensive than allowing a company to patent a product, which at least makes it as valuable as a non-life saving drug.
In conclusion, if we abolish those patents,no one would continue researching and developing new medicines,thus,abolishing patents for life-saving medicines seems to save more lives at the beginning, it would kill more lives in the long run.
（注：文档可能无法思考全面，请浏览后下载，供参考。可复制、编制，期待你的好评与关注）
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容