3 ms·
> it's revealing when the CEO of the org is not a technical person Merck's CEO is a lawyer. > they are kind of _forced_ to do research in one form or another
by rmrfstar 6y ago
> it's revealing when the CEO of the org is not a technical person
Merck's CEO is a lawyer.
> they are kind of _forced_ to do research in one form or another
Modern pharma companies spend more on legal and marketing than they do on R&D [1]. Valeant and Michael Pearson are emblematic of that horrifying trend.
MBA types and McKinsey alums have very different priorities than most hackers/researchers/builders, and it is their priorities that are driving investment decisions these days. That really needs to change.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-28212223
- NalNezumi 6y agoI'm not that knowledgeable on Pharma, but wasn't Valeant an anomaly rather than the trend/modern way pharma worked? I mean Michael Pearson was fired, and The Valeant even had to change their name and rebrand after their fraudulent "buy pharma, cut R&D, spike the drug price" scheme was exposed? Or are there more Valeant like pharmas, and them just the tip of the iceberg.
- JunkDNA 6y agoSpending more on marketing than R&D has been a favorite thing to zero in on but it's not really a useful metric. See here: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2013/05/23/another_look_at_marketing_vs_rd_in_pharma https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2013/05/23/an...
- rmrfstar 6y agoThe article you linked isn't great. It attacks a study that no one finds credible, which labeled a company's entire SG&A as "marketing" and found that "marketing" so measured was 10x R&D. It also predates the BBC link. So, what you meant to say is "calling SG&A marketing is not really useful," which is true. But that's not what the linked BBC article did at all.