Claiming that new drugs with exclusive patents are always more effective than out-of-patent drugs is another cargo cult theme promoted in many highly corporatized
biomedical research centers.
Demonstrating that the drug discovered by your colleagues down the hall (who are pushing for their little startup biotech outfit to be acquired by Pfizer or Merck or Gilead, in an effort backed by the institution's IP office and administration) is less effective for a given condition than a drug discovered 50 years ago would be considered impolite, and would lessen your chances of getting tenure and having a successful career.
For example, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir (aka Paxlovid), heavily promoted for COVID treatment, may be no more effective than older out-of-patent anti-histamine drugs:
> "Since antihistamines seems to hold a crucial prognostic role in the management of Covid‐19, there is a need to identify and repurpose some potential antihistamine drugs. One study suggested diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine, and azelastine to be considered in repositioning, then further research in them. 17 Due to its potent, less side effects, rapid onset of action, specificity, antiallergic, and anti‐inflammatory properties, 24 Cetirizine might be an important drug of consideration in managing Covid‐19 patients at the moment compared to other antihistamines or histamine receptors (H2, H3, and H4)."
Corporatization and the profit motive have an undeniably corrupting effect on scientific integrity, that's clear enough.
One of the issues here is how intellectual property works for pharmaceuticals. A new drug is patentable. An old drug already has generic competitors. We allow doctors to prescribe a drug for just about any reason (off-label use is legal), but only the new ones get investigated for effectiveness (because they are the most profitable as there is less competition).
Recognition of the massive IPR imbalances, and adoption of national-strategic funding for drug development with no IPR.
If the corporates are now gaming the system, then return it to a public utility function, and pay for drug development out of the state.
It is arguably true that we'd plateau at "good enough" drugs and for things like Insulin, maybe not push hard for the increadible advances rapid-action Insulin has, over reliable, understood, cheap ubiquitous insulin. So I can see there are downsides, but its fundamentally health-economics: If you want to argue for the IPR justifying $1000+ per month Insulin shots to motivate making the best insulin out there, I think you're also arguing for a really bad outcome, like my former Hypertension drug which was an isomer twist of a well understood Cox inhibitor, to get the IPR renewed. Somebody really had to work hard on that one.
Demonstrating that the drug discovered by your colleagues down the hall (who are pushing for their little startup biotech outfit to be acquired by Pfizer or Merck or Gilead, in an effort backed by the institution's IP office and administration) is less effective for a given condition than a drug discovered 50 years ago would be considered impolite, and would lessen your chances of getting tenure and having a successful career.
For example, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir (aka Paxlovid), heavily promoted for COVID treatment, may be no more effective than older out-of-patent anti-histamine drugs:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9903129/
> "Since antihistamines seems to hold a crucial prognostic role in the management of Covid‐19, there is a need to identify and repurpose some potential antihistamine drugs. One study suggested diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine, and azelastine to be considered in repositioning, then further research in them. 17 Due to its potent, less side effects, rapid onset of action, specificity, antiallergic, and anti‐inflammatory properties, 24 Cetirizine might be an important drug of consideration in managing Covid‐19 patients at the moment compared to other antihistamines or histamine receptors (H2, H3, and H4)."
Corporatization and the profit motive have an undeniably corrupting effect on scientific integrity, that's clear enough.