Secondly: historically, Indian pharma growth was stunted due to old British laws. Once the industry was unshackled, it grew at a breathtaking rate, mostly by building generic variants of well-known drugs. This has allowed the Indian pharma industry to develop enough local expertise about formulation, manufacturing and distribution. Now they're moving up the food chain by patenting new drugs. Ranbaxy Labs, for example, is busy filing patents[1].

You can't expect the domestic industry to just sprout up organically. The Indian government never spent much money on R&D, so there wasn't much local drug research. But now that they're under the same patent regime, the Indian industries will have to figure out a way to survive.

Having said all this: please don't assume that Western drug companies' hands are clean. They are busy trawling the jungles of Amazon (among other places) to find new compounds, often taking knowledge from local shamans, etc. without any respect for their "IP".

[1] http://www.financialexpress.com/news/ranbaxy-tops-third-worl...

I think you might not be aware that a very large percentage of drugs in the West emerge from publicly funded research... sometimes even 'basic science' research. While pharma does do its own R&D, it mostly just farms promising leads from academic research.

Where they do shell out big bucks is in the cost of performing clinical trials. This is a regulatory cost. While I think trials are a critical step, I'd be surprised if costs here couldn't come down substantially through means that don't involve R&D. Maybe India could offer something in this regard?

India's pharma companies might be a lot more 'innovative' if their academic science and government spending on science were stronger. This might just be a matter of time.

Finding a different way of manufacturing a drug can be very innovative work. Trust me, the chemists that come up with these organic syntheses all too often consider themselves geniuses.

Of course it is. This has easily brought India trillions of dollars worth of benefits. Is there any benefit to India at all of paying billions of dollars per year to the United States for.... nothing?

Oh! I am an Indian too.

Cost reduction is innovation too. Its like what Telecommunications companies have done to call rates here. Remember the days when getting a telephone connection required recommendation letters from ministers? These days you can get one for 100 rupees with a address proof in 20 minutes.

Pharmaceutical patents at most act like software patents sooner or later some one discovers them. But to act like 'I discovered first, so pay me eternally or suffer mercilessly and die' attitude will only do damage.

You are also right in the sense that we must incentivize research. But for that we need larger health care reforms especially in the areas of health insurance. Every Indian must have a means of affording health insurance and pay for quality health care. I like Narayana Hrudayalays's schemes in Bangalore, for farmers and alike.

Regarding when that will happen, your guess is as better as mine.

Don't like to copy-paste but in one of my other comments I wrote: ... Debate about models such as free public healthcare, compulsory insurance, compulsory insurance where the government pays the difference that the less wealthy can't make up for, etc... (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4124317)

You could even go to private clinics. I mean you could go to a good private clinic, get yourself good healthcare and it would be paid for with your + company's contributions.

There were even hospitals that ran minimal payment schemes like MS Ramiah Hospital in Bangalore. Where the hospital trust would finance the difference of treatment after your bills. Sai Baba hospital is doing an awesome job, I know many poor people who got their cataract operation done for almost what they could pay. But as you know our country's population is too high for these patch work attempts to work.

The Government of India needs to seriously reflect on

a. Health care reforms.

b. Insurance, and ways of making it work.

c. Cut corruption in government hospitals and other areas.

d. Taxes on essential commodities like medicine and equipment.

By all means tax the alcohol,cigarettes and other luxury stuff, but taxing medicine and things that save people lives. Isn't quite justifiable.

If it's the latter, with a population of 1.2 billion, this would surely bankrupt India?

We need to learn to work for the things we get.

However, I do feel it's important to bring up the point of making generic drugs more accessible to the masses. Sure, cancer is a big beast, but the masses out there mustn't die of tuberculosis, malaria, pneumonia, etc. just because the drugs are too expensive.

It seems like there just isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of solution. Officially licensing drugs for cheaper sales in developing countries might be a reasonable road to go down.. got any other solutions ?

"But in 2005, India brought its law in line with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules recognising 20-year patents, pushing up the prices of newly launched drugs.

Cipla, India’s fourth largest pharmaceutical company by sales, has been pressing the government to allow widespread use of “compulsory licences”, which are permitted under WTO rules.

The licences allow companies to make existing life-saving drugs to sell in countries where they are otherwise priced out of reach."

While product design is important, availability of a strong manufacturing supply chain is also important. India's role in pharma is similar to what China provides for regular manufacturing.

In a world rich with technology innovation, marketing innovation, distribution innovation(amazon fulfillment services, etc),organizational innovations(open source,etc) and manufacturing innovation the biggest barriers left in many industries are legal and regulatory issues.

There's immense value to be unlocked using regulatory innovation in education(khan academy in k-12 schools), healthcare(almost everything about it), energy(new nuclear power tech), hotels(the whole airBNB legal questions) and other fields.

Shouldn't we even try ?

But without the incentive to invest in the huge cost involved with discovering drugs, you will have nothing to look at the other side, glass or no glass.

I think you're selling humanity short. There are plenty of ways to have society prioritize researching drug therapies for different diseases that don't hinge on reaping massive profit on the sales of the drug. See: public funding. I don't necessarily mean that through government/taxes, but it should certainly be an option.

This is incorrect. And you're making the same mistake as the one you point out in your next sentence. Using an euphemism to simplify a complex ethical question (possibly incorrectly).

According to this [1] theft involves a component of denying another person with rightful possession of that property its use. When dealing with ideas (and software, algorithms, math etc., etc.) we're dealing with new ethical questions that we shouldn't hurry up and sweep under the carpet by pigeonholing into our previously inadequate understanding of ethics. Doubly so when it deals with life and death as in the case of drug patents.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#Elements

^ Where are you getting these numbers from? They seem way too simplistic, and your argument essentially falls apart without them.

Real 'invention cost' would be determined by far more factors - cost of raw materials

- labour cost (I bet it's cheaper for pharmaceutical companies to pay workers much lesser in India too.),

- whether your competitors are targeting the same market (if these companies stopped researching said drugs, Cipla would come up with a cheaper way to do the R&D required, and then make a killing, even with their low rates, since they would have cornered the market.)

Plus the goodwill of Govts of developing countries that are offered these medicines at low rates may lead to fruitful collaboration with national research institutes in those countries, thereby lessening the need for enormous profit margins anyway.

As someone said below, the fact that there is more money to be made selling iPads rather than bread does not mean that everyone switches to making iPads.

Of 5,000 new compounds, you'll find 250 which are interesting enough to test in a lab (animals or in vitro), 5 which are interesting enough to test on humans, and 1 which gets approved.

It costs peanuts to find the 5,000 new compounds, and a little bit to figure out which ones are interesting (say, $50,000 each, about $250 million). Those 250 interesting drugs will cost a million each to test - subtotal $250,000. The 5 drugs which are tested on humans cost a fair bit (say $50 million each - $250 million for all 5). Getting the final compound approved takes a lot too, because you need a massive trial.

All up, it's about $1 billion per drug.

If you want to reverse engineer it, it's about $10 million dollars for a chemical engineer to read the publicly available formula, figure out how to synthesize it, and set up a small plant.

Whether it's a new drug, or a drug you copied, it costs a few cents labor / materials to make each dose once the factory is built. Yes, India could knock $0.01 off each tablet, by employing cheaper factory techs. But no-one cares about saving $0.01 off a $1 product.

India could do the R&D cheaper, but not a lot cheaper. It's like building an OS - you need experience people who know what they are doing, not just cheap process workers.

Ripping off US companies isn't a bad idea, because it lets Indian workers gain more experience, which will help them create better R&D jobs. In the long run, this might even be good for the US, because Indian R&D could create a lot of good drugs for the US to buy.