4 ms·
I'm not saying the current system in US/Europe is efficient or even acceptable but it is a model that has produced novel therapeutics in the past. I think we c
by streety 17y ago
I'm not saying the current system in US/Europe is efficient or even acceptable but it is a model that has produced novel therapeutics in the past. I think we can agree that the price is too high but hopefully we can also agree that benefits have been gained from those novel therapeutics.
I got the impression that the article was generally anti-patents and I framed my response in that context. A ban on patents has been beneficial for the generics industry but if it has a higher cost in terms of stifling novel therapeutics, which also have a benefit, then it may be an overall loss for the population as a whole. In this way there is little difference between a ban on patents being good for the generics industry and strong copyright laws being good for the record industry. Both may be true but the interests of the population may not be aligned perfectly with these industries.
On the other hand if research into novel therapeutics is able to thrive with a ban on patents then you get the benefits of new therapies and the affordable prices. This is what I would like to see before dismissing the patent system entirely when what may be best is a little tweaking.
Finally on marketing versus R&D I'm not sure that the multiple could genuinely said to be 'very large.' This article suggests marketing:R&D is 2:1.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...
- jacquesm 17y agoOff label promotion, ghost writing and so called 'promotional' meetings were not included in that study. That may seem like a little bit until you realize that there are roughly 500,000 such meetings annually (2008). The spendings in that article account for only (roughly) 40% of total expenditure.
- streety 17y agoOkay, google is failing to work its magic for me today. Would you be able to point me to a more inclusive estimate of the marketing to R&D spend?
- jacquesm 17y agogive me a bit... ok, here is a link: http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/financial-performance/6356979-1.html http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/fin... From the same book quoted above, in 1990 it was roughly 1:3.2, since then the situation has improved a bit, but I can't find anything closer than 2004. Still, it is quite shocking when you realize that most of the marketing goes towards pushing a few, well established drugs at immense markups, and that most research is focused on either extending the life of these drugs or the introduction of replacement drugs for drugs that are on their last legs in the patent cycle. Genuine research (research which attacks problems for which no current solution exists) is a very very small fraction of total expenditure. more interesting data here: (not sure if that link works...) http://books.google.com/books?id=hJpI3Ki7MhUC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=legal+expenditure+vs+r%26d+in+the+pharmaceutical+industry&source=bl&ots=nPEr9ejXgw&sig=qJMAguuWrr3r6eQX92rr5Fc_nS0&hl=en&ei=vLeCSuj0KoHc-Qbq3JCxCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=hJpI3Ki7MhUC&pg=PA77...