Because all studies say pretty much the same thing...and corrupt politicians chug along doing the opposite. Of course academics often speak softly.

Investments in Pharmaceuticals Before and After TRIPS by Margaret Kyle, Anita McGahan - #15468 (HE ITI PR)

Abstract:

We examine the relationship between patent protection for pharmaceuticals and investment in development of new drugs. Patent protection has increased around the world as a consequence of the TRIPS Agreement, which specifies minimum levels of intellectual property protection for members of the World Trade Organization. It is generally argued that patents are critical for pharmaceutical research efforts, and so greater patent protection in developing and least-developed countries might result in greater effort by pharmaceutical firms to develop drugs that are especially needed in those countries. Since patents also have the potential to reduce access to treatments through higher prices, it is imperative to assess whether the benefits of increased incentives have materialized in research on diseases that particularly affect the poor. We find that patent protection is associated with increases in research and development (R&D) effort when adopted in high income countries. However, the introduction of patents in developing countries has not been followed by greater investment. Particularly for diseases that primarily affect the poorest countries, our results suggest that alternative mechanisms for inducing R&D may be more appropriate than patents.

http://papers.nber.org/papers/W15468

"We find that patent protection is associated with increases in research and development (R&D) effort when adopted in high income countries"

1. Can you site statistics on not only dollars invested but private vs public dollars invested. What I would like to know is, has public investment in the early stage research that ends up being consumed by private industry and subsequently patented, increased proportionally to the companies investment in said patent. I have read that drug companies will often include the federal dollars invested in their patents when they point to investment in R&D... Of course this is technically accurate, but intentionally misleading.

2. Again, ratios.. if a company is granted a monopoly and their revenues increase by 100% to .. lets say 800 billion and they increase their investment in R&D from $120 million to $200 Million dollars, they have actually reduced their relative investment in R&D and increased their profits disproportionately. They have shown that protectionist laws have actually done harm to R&D by establishing investor earnings per share expectations. Those expectations ripple throughout the sector and competitors follow suit.

3. I got nothing else... I just thought that highlighting only two points looked a little odd. :)

I think that it is controversial term papers question.

We examine the relationship between patent protection for pharmaceuticals and investment in development of new drugs. fundo de investimento