I don't think we should go down the rabbit hole of how to fine-tune drug pricing regulations: either we embrace rent-extracting behaviours until it gets socially unacceptable (and then we randomly sanction), or we fight intellectual property in this field (to start) to setup something entirely new.
Not an expert on pharma R&D but it seems that only a very limited part of that budget (10%) is allocated to compound discovery. The rest of the R&D investments are something that doesn't need any significant incentive to be performed bc:
A) you already have a promising compound and you would do pre-clinical studies anyway
B) you already have a very promising compound and you would do clinical trials anyway
C) you have a good drug and you would produce it anyway
So society is protecting with intellectual properties privileges, pharma companies that "risk" 10% of their R&D budget (but must do a good job, otherwise they lose all their capital).
Do we really need to outsource to businesses (obviously not driven by noble ideals) that 10% - especially considering that it's spent on researchers educated in at least partly publicly financed schools?
I think the discussion shouldn't be taboo.
PS: Also forgot to mention: given that companies are only interested in what they can market well, they are not researching any compound that can't be patented and "squeezed". So for most compounds known we are not doing any drug-development research - which sounds very inefficient for society.
I don't think we should go down the rabbit hole of how to fine-tune drug pricing regulations: either we embrace rent-extracting behaviours until it gets socially unacceptable (and then we randomly sanction), or we fight intellectual property in this field (to start) to setup something entirely new.
Not an expert on pharma R&D but it seems that only a very limited part of that budget (10%) is allocated to compound discovery. The rest of the R&D investments are something that doesn't need any significant incentive to be performed bc:
A) you already have a promising compound and you would do pre-clinical studies anyway
B) you already have a very promising compound and you would do clinical trials anyway
C) you have a good drug and you would produce it anyway
So society is protecting with intellectual properties privileges, pharma companies that "risk" 10% of their R&D budget (but must do a good job, otherwise they lose all their capital).
Do we really need to outsource to businesses (obviously not driven by noble ideals) that 10% - especially considering that it's spent on researchers educated in at least partly publicly financed schools?
I think the discussion shouldn't be taboo.
PS: Also forgot to mention: given that companies are only interested in what they can market well, they are not researching any compound that can't be patented and "squeezed". So for most compounds known we are not doing any drug-development research - which sounds very inefficient for society.