Unfortunately since they get paid on IP, it's more like the opposite. A minor revision to replace a proved drug with a re-patentable version is a little work for a lot of money; proving a new use for an out-of-patent drug is a lot of work for very little money.

I don't necessarily agree with the snark but we'd probably be better off if more medical research were not profit-motivated.

> proving a new use for an out-of-patent drug is a lot of work for very little money.

That's not entirely true. There are programs in the US and UK which offer "marketing exclusivity" for companies that perform trials validating new uses for existing drugs. These aren't exactly patents, but it does provide a financial incentive.

I'm curious what about that you think was snark, or if you're just offended by the phrase.