Pharma mostly avoids low-profit avenues, but at least partly because that would be a good way to go out of business. However, to suggest that they intentionally suppress researchers with the goal of reducing costs seems a bit far-fetched.
Mine was not a conspiracy-innuendo, but rather a simple critique of profit-driven research in health-related sciences. Humans can do wonderful things when they work together, so it's rather sad that we seem to do that only when there are riches on the line.
But as a private company they need profit to fund the science. They'd go out of business if they weren't making a profit.
It's largely the role of government to fund public goods (e.g. by providing grants to university researchers). We can't expect the scientists and engineers to work for free.
Yes, as a private company. In my opinion, it's not like everything has to be a private profit-driven company, precisely because incentives are not necessarily aligned to the public good.
1. make drugs without a profit margin available to consumers and researchers
2. go out of business.
It seems like there's plenty of grey area in there.
many pharma do invest some of their portfolio into things that are unlikely to have short-term or any payoff, and many of them also maintain compassionate programs to get expensive drugs to people who wouldn't be able to otherwise afford them. They do this because they are highly profitable, which unfortunately is as much explained by their marketing acumen as much as it is by solid research and development.