Lets say the NIH has paid for the basic research, and identified a particular molecule in the body as a "druggable target": that is, if you make a chemical that inhibits the molecule, you should have such and such an effect

(eg, humans have a gene that encodes a molecule that synthesizes cholesterol; once might suppose that a chemical that inhibits said molecule might reduce cholesterol, which might be good for heart disease

These chemicals are called statins)

(most drugs act as inhibitors; a few are activators)



First, you have to make a chemical that is stable, non toxic, can be given as a pill, or, much worse, a depot injection once a month, shows appropriate distribution and excretion...then animal tests..then , say 5 years of human testing at a cost of 5 to 10 million...and all this is gonna be paid for by prize money ??

Might as well offer invisible pink ponys



The problem is not patents; it is our healthcare system; the high cost of drugs is a symptom of wierd payment structures/incentives, not patent issues.



quote

For example, generic drugs for first-line AIDS defenses have brought down the cost of treatment by almost 99% since 2000 alone, from $10,000 to $130.



how does that compare to other technologies ? I bet the first lightbulbs were really $$

PS: iirc, the first myriad tests were $ because of primitive technology that was inherently $ -when introduced, it cost real money to do a gene scan



PPS: maybe i missed it, but Stiglitz doesn't make any concrete proposals