I’m not sure you have great insights as to how the biotech market operates today because the basis of your arguments aren’t really factual.
“Haven't solved cancer”? Come on man!
Given the cost of developing a single drug can be in the billions of dollars, what financial incentive is there for companies to spend so much on R&D and clinical development if there is no commercial exclusivity rights at the end of the pipeline? You could nationalise drug development but that is a lot of risk to burden the taxpayer with.
What financial incentive is there for drug companies to ever cure anything when instead they can just develop drugs that alleviate symptoms, which you must then purchase in-perpetuity?
This is the best retort. I'm going to start using this, thanks.
The one I usually go with is "It actually costs $1T to develop a drug. $999B in basic research paid by US taxpayers and $1B in just enough frivolous novelty for the bigpharma company to get a patent racket going".
Common factors seem to be: secrecy, and sticking to the old mindset of #ImaginaryProperty business models (patents, ndas, copyrights, et cetera).
I want to see the visions espoused by Theranos and uBiome come to fruition. There are *not* a lot of great examples of good biotech companies to emulate. AFAIK, there hasn't been a "don't be evil" moment in biotech.
Some biotech/healthcare company needs to come out and say "fck the old ways, they aren't working—Americans are not healthier, costs are up, and we still haven't solved cancer", and take a radical new approach of openness, collaboration, and forget about the abosolute horsesht practices of secrecy, #imaginaryproperty, and putting patients far down on the list of priorities.