4 ms·
i don't know if this is true, but i heard somewhere that drug companies don't really innovate anything. it's the NIH and universities (via government funding)
by danek 17y ago
i don't know if this is true, but i heard somewhere that drug companies don't really innovate anything.
it's the NIH and universities (via government funding) that actually discover the drugs, then they sell the exclusive rights to manufacture it to big pharma (who then spends a lot to get it approved and market it and such...)
(this is the book, i haven't read it)
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375760946/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/...
so in this case (if true) patents fail again.
- mseebach 17y agoI don't know if that's correct, but if it is, it's patents that make it possible for the universities and NIH to sell the right exclusively. Since manufacturing, testing and marketing a drug is hysterically expensive, the patent seems to serve a purpose there -- even if pharma companies are more akin to specialized investment bankers than scientists.
- erik 17y agoAs an interesting side note; apparently pharma companies spend significantly more on marketing than they do on research and development. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.ht...
- paraschopra 17y agoActually it will be unwise to generalize for all pharma companies but yes it is a standard practice to license rights from labs/univ