I find it somewhat ironic that a nation can jail scientists for not accurately predicting a phenomenon that is by its very nature unpredictable. Yet allow bankers, who having controls over the vast majority of the world's money, still failed to predict and guard against a catastrophe that was entirely within their remit, to award themselves multi-million $ bonuses.

Given that virtually every breakthrough in medical drug development is funded by private enterprises I would suggest they have done a pretty good job over the past 50 years.



Most would accept all drugs have side effects - steroids - for example - are truly terrible drugs but their pluses outweigh the negatives so consumption continues.



We could have left medical drug development to the public sector - and then where would we be!! The old adage "Mother is the necessity of invention" come to mind - driving profits has yielded huge positive externalities in this area.

So the universities, where much of the research into new medicines and technologies take place, are all funded by private enterprise? I suppose private enterprise also funded the education and welfare of the participants too, not to mention the infrastructure required?

Much as it pains me to say this, but as someone who works in the chemical industry I have to agree with Sal on this matter. Very few new drug candidates come out of the universities. It doesn't however have to be this way.



Personally I would like the NHS to fund it's own state run pharma company. This would allow long term research into ailments that the pharma companies would not find profitable and the manufacture of cheap generic drugs. Before any of the Thatcherite numpties complain, I would like to point out that the US military has one of the highest funded medical research programmes in the world, all paid for by the good old US tax payer!



In my personal opinion novel blue sky research by universities in this country is held back by the need to attract industrial funding. The universities should be doing govt funded research pushing the boundaries of science, not research for big business on the cheap. This work should then be patented. If a company then picks up on the technology developed it then has pay the govt or university a royalty or license fee for the commercial exploitation of their work.

Where do you think the money comes from? Big drug companies pump millions into educational establishments to fund research - most of it very speculative. The real nitty gritty of drug development is done in house - this stuff is very commercially sensitive you would not let this data out for your rivals.

Big drug companies also fail to pass on much of their trail data to doctors, regulators etc. Except for the results from the most positive trials of course.



If anyone wants to know more, read [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Pharma-companies-mislead-patients/dp/0007350740/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351590552&sr=8-1this[/url.



It leaves you with one conclusion: in 'the real world', profits matter far more than people.

Interview with the author [url=http://audio.theguardian.tv/audio/kip/science/series/science/1350653685662/7287/gnl.sci.120122.jp.science_weekly_goldacrefull.mp3here[/url

And well worth listening.

From your book - how much on average does it cost to bring a new drug to market? What is the hit rate? Profit is crucial how else is R&D to be funded - there are current >200 potential alzheimer's drugs in development.



How many drugs actually get to market with real negative side effects? How many drugs get through the independent testing, get a licence and then get pulled due to adverse side effects?



Perhaps you think drug development should be undertaken solely within the public sector - maybe we should still be using leeches!!

It's not 'my' book.



But if you need the answer to these questions - and more - I suggest you read it. It is written by a doctor and scientist. It will, no doubt, have absolutely been legaled into the ground before publication.



But then again, one could quote another doctor, Dr Phil Hammond (also the health columnist for [iPrivate Eye[/i) that we are "medicalising" (his word) the populace and that pharmaceutical companies are inventing drugs - and then a condition to 'cure'. The example he uses is companies creating a female need for Viagra.



You could also read Dr Malcolm Kendrick on the con of cholesterol as a disease and cholesterol drugs in particular (this is also covered in Goldacre's book).



There's Dr John Briffa too, who uses science to show why the diet advice of the past 30 odd years has been counterproductive in terms of rising obesity. He also covered the cholesterol issue - scientifically but for a lay reader.



There is no shortage of material out there if you wish to educate yourself.

Indeed. Seems clear there is potentially much more cash in not finding a cure for anything than in finding one. The golden goose of drugs would presumably be something that didn't cure you, but would keep you alive for as long as you took the drug. Now that's what I'd call profit.





Sadly for the medically illiterate and the knee-jerkers searching for a [ibon mot[/i, [url=http://www.yalemedlaw.com/2011/08/medicinal-leeches-natures-finest-surgical-tool-from-the-swamps/we still do[/url.

Most drugs don't actually cure things - they enable the condition to be managed. Your body is like a machine over time it will wear out and can never be restored to its optimum.



If you have a heart condition surgery is really the only option and that will only work in conjunction with drugs like beta-blockers and AC inhibitors. Before these drugs were developed you would have been lucky to get to surgery.



You may consider this a bad thing because it involves "profit" but you should ask the anyone who takes them whether their quality of life has been improved because of them. You could do the same for the cancer treatments that have increased the quality and longevity of many peoples lives.



Without the drive for competitive advantage and ultimately profit these drugs would never have been developed as quickly as they have. They improve the quality of life for billions of people. Your view on drug companies says much about your irrational take on all things that involve profit making enterprises.