One of the big arguments about the possibility of patenting genes is to do with incentives to develop technologies. Well, no doubt there is some of that. But we should be wary as the perhaps unsurprising results of a study into relative investments in research and marketing by big pharma companies shows that probably about twice as much goes on the latter as the former. "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,"
Now I know it's complicated, and I'm not calling for easy answers, but I am saying that we should be real about the possible distortions.
Big Pharma Spends More On Advertising Than Research And Development, Study Finds:
06 January 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg -
I'm not sure people have believed me when I've said that there have been discovered uncaffeinated coffee beans. Well, here's one...
No comments:
Post a Comment