The scientists who develop such drugs generally do not do it to make billions of dollars. Their salaries usually are in the 6 figures and I see no evidence that fewer drugs would be developed if society paid for development through universities and nonprofit research centers.
There are other incentives in life other than money.
That would be worth exploring, but the cost of developing a drug is astronomically high: "The average drug developed by a major pharmaceutical company costs at least $4 billion, and it can be as much as $11 billion." http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-tru.... The most expensive part is Phase III Clinical Trials, and it's growing: "We examined drug development in four major public health areas and discovered that for any given drug on the market, typically 90 percent or more of that drug’s development costs are incurred in Phase III trials." http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/fda_05.htm
No university or nonprofit has that kind of budget, and even if they did, they are unlikely to take on the risk of a failed drug.
Pharmaceutical companies typically spend more money on advertising than drug development which leads me to think that the patent system isn't that necessary to the overall profitability.
It really is not that simple in real life. That's a decent write-up of how advertising is supposed to work for your disruptive yet novel startup, but pharmaceuticals is a more complicated animal.
Drugs are things that people "need". If no drug companies advertised, people would still go to their doctors with problems, and doctors would still prescribe medication when necessary (you have some degree of advertising prompting doctor visits, but for the important stuff, and in a system where people are not afraid of the monetary cost of going to a doctor, they'll be going anyway).
However currently all drug manufacturers must advertise their products because their competitors advertise their competing products. Anyone who doesn't advertise will be left behind as patients request the drug that they saw on TV. No company wants to be the company that doesn't advertise.
Well, they're picking the drugs that they can sell the most of -- i.e. the ones that will benefit the most people. That's not a bad thing.
However, the cost of human trials are still a problem. Because of the costs, drug research to treat rare diseases aren't going to get funded by anyone.
The last time I got an Rx, the doctor actually made the decision along with my insurance company (at least how much they'd pay).
So you're saying that drug advertising is pulling the wool over the eyes of the entire industry so that they give patients nothing more than placebos?
Most drugs, even those that offer a benefit over current therapies, don't sell themselves. Physicians need to learn about new drugs, have an opportunity to try them before you ever see widespread use.
Consider that the cost may be astronomically high because it's possible to make marginally more. It's entirely possible that the same level of drug research can be done for much less money.
For instance, with patents there is an incentive to find a solution first. This probably raises the cost of research because (a) pharmas spend more time researching alternative medicines with different compounds with the same effect as existing drugs simply to get around pre-existing patents and (b) pharmas spend more money to rush research to patent it first.
Also, if clinical trials are the problem, India appears to be willing to help.
Exactly, drug research is science and should be treated as such. Other scientific discoveries are not patentable and we don't have problems with lack of scientists willing to do their jobs for university salaries.
For me the notion that someone can claim a right to a chemical compound that has positive effect on our bodies is absurd. It's like Einstein patenting e=mc^2 and asking nuclear power plants to pay him.
> But there aren't other ways to fund drug research.
Yes there are; public money and normal sized salaries for scientists doing the public research for the public good. Granting monopolies to private corporations is hardly the only way to achieve things. Scientist's aren't in science for the money, science generally pays shit anyway; they're in it for other reasons.
Yes, because publicly funded research institutes have enough money to cover multiple drugs in development (a majority of which will fail), clinical trials, and manufacturing, etc...
There are legitimate problems with the current system, such as Pharma typically doesn't produce drugs for rare diseases - there just isn't enough money in the market to justify the lost opportunity costs. Publicly funded research is supposed to help those instances where the economic incentives aren't there.
This can lead to a perverse switch in motive. Instead of trying to help patients who legitimately need help to trying to get as many people to buy a drug as possible, regardless of need. But in case you haven't been paying attention - public funding for science isn't exactly growing. So if we want to see some of these next generation cancer drugs with small markets, you need to have the ability to charge large amounts.
But the public institutes just aren't equipped or financed well enough to handle it on their own.
> Yes, because publicly funded research institutes have enough money to cover multiple drugs in development (a majority of which will fail), clinical trials, and manufacturing, etc...
I didn't say they did; I'm saying they should. Medicine as a business is immoral IMHO, and a good half of this county agrees with me. We want public healthcare, not private healthcare because money is a perverse incentive when it comes to health.
> But the public institutes just aren't equipped or financed well enough to handle it on their own.
Agreed, but they should be, and if we want to see a better healthcare system that does more for the general public rather than just the rich, they'll need to be. The free market is not the correct solution for healthcare/medicine. Medicine is a communal good and should be funded by and available to the whole community.
I think you forgot to finish that sentence with "currently in any wider use".
The current system has become a few spots, take a look at the debate about cherry-picking clinical trials to get new drugs approved, requirements for pre-registration and the non-functional oversight of the same ...
Perhaps trying new ways to fund drug research can be a part of revitalizing the system?
Academia has a spotty track record when it comes to drug development. They don't have the money to put into lots of potential drugs, so they aren't able to test the breadth of targets that a Bayer would be able to. For all of the problems that Pharma has, they have been able to bring a lot of new drugs to market pretty efficiently.
other incentives like what? The only thing I can think of as a reasonable incentive would be to create something that heals the sick but... ohhhhhhhhhhhh..
Seriously though I want to stab that guy. Maybe we should ask the scientists who put in the real work who they think should have access to the drugs.
There are other incentives in life other than money.