For potentially lethal and widespread problems such as cancer or infectious disease, I have to disagree-- even in the most cynical of research spaces, there is

For potentially lethal and widespread problems such as cancer or infectious disease, I have to disagree-- even in the most cynical of research spaces, there is a baseline of good-faith effort and desire to improve the human condition by offering a permanent fix. Additionally, whoever is able to provide a functional cure for a big name illness will ascend into the hallowed halls of science-- a fact that nobody forgets. I don't doubt that a prospective cure would cost a tremendous amount of cash to buy for yourself, but I think it'd still be a win for the pharmas. If a pharmaceutical firm was able to cure one kind of cancer with one drug, they'd be able to shutter all of their other production facilities for the myriad number of drugs which formerly targeted that cancer, amounting to a big decrease in their operating costs. Pair that with an entire market of people needing your one very expensive product, and I think it'd work out in their favor. Unfortunately, there is another side of this coin-- mental health. I believe that currently the problem with the profit motive which you identified is actively harming further research and development of effective cures. Cynically, the biotech companies want to make money, and psychopharmaceuticals are the ultimate cash cow as things are currently. A diagnosis of depression or ADHD means that they have a life-long customer. Thus, in order to maintain these customers buying the drugs at high prices, they must re-invent their cash cow drugs with minor changes in time with the patent cycle. There is no incentive to develop a cure, specifically because the system can be gamed in a very profitable way by rolling over patents and offering bandaid solutions.