In reality, public sources — especially the NIH — fund the basic research that makes scientific breakthroughs. Then small, boutique biotech and pharmaceutical firms take that publicly generated knowledge and do the final stages of research, like running clinical trials, that get the drugs to market.
That is not true. Small biotech usually cannot effort late stage development. They either just get buyed by big pharma. Or they licence the lead compound to big pharma and get royalties. Very few exemptions to this.
Edit: the link you provide cites this FT article as a source for this claim. However the article is about M&A and supports my point.
I'll assume you know more about this than I do despite the lack of any citation.
I refuse to believe there's an ethically acceptable business justification for this ridiculous markup.
The entire healthcare industry in the US is built on a foundation of corporate greed. This is just one obvious example.
At least they loose exclusivity after 15 -20 years and generics are usually much cheaper.
From the passage I already quoted:
That is not true. Small biotech usually cannot effort late stage development. They either just get buyed by big pharma. Or they licence the lead compound to big pharma and get royalties. Very few exemptions to this.
Edit: the link you provide cites this FT article as a source for this claim. However the article is about M&A and supports my point.
I'll assume you know more about this than I do despite the lack of any citation.
I refuse to believe there's an ethically acceptable business justification for this ridiculous markup.
The entire healthcare industry in the US is built on a foundation of corporate greed. This is just one obvious example.
At least they loose exclusivity after 15 -20 years and generics are usually much cheaper.