Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
This is just plain wrong. R&D costs for drugs are astronomical, and the only reason that the drugs companies can afford to spend those sums is because patent law gives them the right to exclusivity for a limited period, thus allowing them a reasonable return on investment. If you think that that R&D could continue in the absence of patent protection, you're living in a fantasy world.
|
This is incorrect. The Pharmaceutical industry spends twice as much on advertising as it does on research and development. It is estimated that of the 235 billion dollars in annual US pharmaceutical sales in 2004, 13.4%, or about 32 billion dollars, was spent on research and development. That is the same amount of money the National Institute of Health spends on research. In contrast, the pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4%, or about 58 billion dollars, on advertising.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0105140107.htm
Quote:
|
Thus, the study’s findings supports the position that the U.S. pharmaceutical industry is marketing-driven and challenges the perception of a research-driven, life-saving, pharmaceutical industry, while arguing in favour of a change in the industry’s priorities in the direction of less promotion, according to Gagnon and Lexchin.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore
As a matter of perspective if the governments of the world can afford to engage in space exploration, build particle accelerators, etc., what would prevent them from taking on R and D costs for medical research into vital areas? The rise in taxes could be compensated by the lower cost of pharmaceutical products.
|
Economist Dean Baker has proposed that instead of patents (for medicine) the US government awards prizes (a one time payout) and put the information in the public domain.