4 ms·
Sadly most of that money is spent on marketing [1] and most new drugs are just minor tweaks to existing compounds [2], much safer bets than brand new approaches
by laurencerowe 10y ago
Sadly most of that money is spent on marketing [1] and most new drugs are just minor tweaks to existing compounds [2], much safer bets than brand new approaches.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-pharmaceutical-companies-are-spending-far-more-on-marketing-than-research/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...
[2] http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/07/06/serious-risks-and-few-new-benefits-from-fda-approved-drugs/ http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/07/06/serious-risks-and-f...
- refurb 10y agoHyperbole seems to be getting worse on HN. First off, no, marketing is not where most of the money is spent. Second, marketing spend has a positive ROI, so they get more money back than they spent. Lastly, this entire discussion is about a wonder drug that cures a terrible disease and you claim most new drugs are minor tweaks.
- jessriedel 10y agoAlthough those two points are interesting and relevant, my statement doesn't conflict with them. Or are you claiming that Europe isn't meaningfully free-riding simply because new drug development just isn't valuable, and we'd be better off with much less drug research? I think that's a defensible claim, but it's very contentious and should be stated clearly if you believe it.