Why aren't pharmaceuticals companies working towards cures rather than alleviating symptoms?

Question

Is this a case of ensuring "job security" profits?

Answer 1

Pharmaceutical companies are businesses and as such they are driven by the profit incentive - Make money for shareholders. While there is some money in cures - penicillin, etc. - there is much more money in treating symptoms indefinitely.

Sell the patient the cure once, or sell them medication to treat the symptoms for the rest of their life. It's a no-brainer choice from a business decision perspective.

Look at the pricing of AIDS drugs for an example of this inconsistency in action. It's really not about helping people, it's about setting prices so as to maximize profits. Sad but true.

Answer 2

It's 'treatments' rather than cures. High Blood Pressure, for instance, has no particular symptoms (unless you're about to die of it any moment), and the drugs prescribed for it do reduce it to normal levels - that's an effective treatment, not just alleviating a symptom - but don't 'cure' it.

One reason is that there has been an increased prevelence of chronic conditions. This is not unreasonable. Cureable and/or accute conditions are being cured, afterall. And, the population is aging - as you get older, you're at increasing risk for chronic conditions.

But, yes, there is an impetus in the pharmacueticals industry to find profitable drugs. Drugs are profitable, obviously, the more of them you can sell. If you're selling a cure - something each victim of the ailment would only need to take once or for one course of treatment - you better find a cure to a very widespread ailment. Antibiotics are a good example. They cure bacterial infections, but bacterial infectsion are quite common, so they're proffitable. If you're selling a treatment for a chronic condition, then you can target a less common ailment, since you have long-term customers.

Of course, if you can find a treatment for a common, chronic ailment, you can really clean up.

Some chronic conditions are probably incureable - they're the result of genetic vulnerability and environmental stressors, and once you have them, you'll alway have them - you'd have to re-write your genetic code and re-wind time to cure them.

But, I don't doubt that there are at least some conditions that could have been cured, but that were instead treated because it was more profitable. The closest thing to an example of that would be uclers. Ulcers were very common mid-century, thought to be caused by stress, so, since many people couldn't take up less stressful lifestyles, treatments were sought. In the 80s, a very effective drug was developed to treat ulcers - and it was wildly profitable. Also in the 80s, some researchers discovered evidence that ulcers were actually caused by a bacterial infection and could be cured. That research was not exactly ignored, but it wasn't enthusiastically taken up by doctors around the country - until after the patents on the profitable drug had expired.

(Similar acid-reducing drugs, BTW, are still pushed for 'acid refulx disease' which is different from ulcers).

Another thing to consider is that it's become acceptable to advertise drugs to patients. So, you /see/ a lot more advertising for more potentially proffitable drugs - the ones that treat chronic conditions, especially if there are multiple drugs that treat the same condition. You don't see a lot of adds for cures. The assumption is presumably that if you have a cureable condition, you'll seek out a doctor, and he'll prescribe the cure.

Answer 3

They do both.....But if they take profits and put them into researh, everyone screams they are to blame for high prices.
1 out of 100 projects yields any fruit.
I think they do bot, as there are many medications from Pharm Companies in the World Wide Marketplace, yet are not allowed in America by the FDA.
Many Cures involve personal behavior though too.

Answer 4

I've heard the 'job security' argument SO many times, and it just doesn't make any sense. There will always be things we can't cure, and can only treat the symptoms of (mostly viral infections like colds and the flu). Are you telling me that ANY company wouldn't like the sign on their door to say, "Lilly: The Company That Cured AIDS". Talk about job security? Those guys would be funded for the rest of their existence just on the off-chance they might cure something else.

Answer 5

more money can be made by creating diet pills and ED pills then curing malaria or Aids since those are more common in third world countries that have no money. Pharmaceutical companies have roughyl a 25% profit margin, which is one of the higest in an industry. they spend most of there money on elective drugs, rather then the neccessary ones.

Answer 6

I'm not sure it's why they formed the company. University's, Hospitals, Research faculties look for a cure rather then alleviating symptoms.

Answer 7

pharm companies have created hundreds maybe thousands of products that cure. Some things you just can't cure but you can treat the symptom. for example, you can't cure a limp penis but you can get it up for a little bit.

Answer 8

Why aren't car companies working towards teleportation technology rather than continuing to build slow, environmentally destructive vehicles?

sigh

Answer 9

Pharmaceuticals do not do most of the research, it is Universities. Therefore, it is the government that is not looking for cures because the people who represent us are in the pockets of big Pharmaceuticals.

Answer 10

Yes, there is little profit in curing things.

This is why Gillette doesn't make electric razors.