There are other incentives in life other than money.
No university or nonprofit has that kind of budget, and even if they did, they are unlikely to take on the risk of a failed drug.
Marketing spend is based on the idea you spend $X and get $X + Y back. This doesn't always work, but it's the general premise.
This means without marketing dollars they'd be making less money.
So you're saying that drug advertising is pulling the wool over the eyes of the entire industry so that they give patients nothing more than placebos?
Most drugs, even those that offer a benefit over current therapies, don't sell themselves. Physicians need to learn about new drugs, have an opportunity to try them before you ever see widespread use.
However, the cost of human trials are still a problem. Because of the costs, drug research to treat rare diseases aren't going to get funded by anyone.
Drugs are things that people "need". If no drug companies advertised, people would still go to their doctors with problems, and doctors would still prescribe medication when necessary (you have some degree of advertising prompting doctor visits, but for the important stuff, and in a system where people are not afraid of the monetary cost of going to a doctor, they'll be going anyway).
However currently all drug manufacturers must advertise their products because their competitors advertise their competing products. Anyone who doesn't advertise will be left behind as patients request the drug that they saw on TV. No company wants to be the company that doesn't advertise.
Advertising makes advertising necessary. It's a sort of "Advertising Prisoners Dilemma": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#In_economics
One way to break this is to create laws that forbid advertising. Another is to allow the formation of cartels.
For instance, with patents there is an incentive to find a solution first. This probably raises the cost of research because (a) pharmas spend more time researching alternative medicines with different compounds with the same effect as existing drugs simply to get around pre-existing patents and (b) pharmas spend more money to rush research to patent it first.
Also, if clinical trials are the problem, India appears to be willing to help.
For me the notion that someone can claim a right to a chemical compound that has positive effect on our bodies is absurd. It's like Einstein patenting e=mc^2 and asking nuclear power plants to pay him.
But there aren't other ways to fund drug research.
Yes there are; public money and normal sized salaries for scientists doing the public research for the public good. Granting monopolies to private corporations is hardly the only way to achieve things. Scientist's aren't in science for the money, science generally pays shit anyway; they're in it for other reasons.
Edit: the parent was originally a snarky one-liner "Yes there are"
There are legitimate problems with the current system, such as Pharma typically doesn't produce drugs for rare diseases - there just isn't enough money in the market to justify the lost opportunity costs. Publicly funded research is supposed to help those instances where the economic incentives aren't there.
This can lead to a perverse switch in motive. Instead of trying to help patients who legitimately need help to trying to get as many people to buy a drug as possible, regardless of need. But in case you haven't been paying attention - public funding for science isn't exactly growing. So if we want to see some of these next generation cancer drugs with small markets, you need to have the ability to charge large amounts.
But the public institutes just aren't equipped or financed well enough to handle it on their own.
I didn't say they did; I'm saying they should. Medicine as a business is immoral IMHO, and a good half of this county agrees with me. We want public healthcare, not private healthcare because money is a perverse incentive when it comes to health.
> But the public institutes just aren't equipped or financed well enough to handle it on their own.
Agreed, but they should be, and if we want to see a better healthcare system that does more for the general public rather than just the rich, they'll need to be. The free market is not the correct solution for healthcare/medicine. Medicine is a communal good and should be funded by and available to the whole community.
The current system has become a few spots, take a look at the debate about cherry-picking clinical trials to get new drugs approved, requirements for pre-registration and the non-functional oversight of the same ...
Perhaps trying new ways to fund drug research can be a part of revitalizing the system?
Seriously though I want to stab that guy. Maybe we should ask the scientists who put in the real work who they think should have access to the drugs.