Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Translational medicine has excited expectations of the drug development process seeing better days. Hope is much needed, as the process in its current form is ‘unsustainable’1 and its yield unimpressive. Only a small percentage of highly promising molecular discoveries find their way into a clinical trial and even a smaller percentage ends up in a pharmaceutical product marketed for clinical indications. Various reasons contribute to this problem ranging from purely biomedical, safety and efficacy ones, to merely commercial calculations. Large numbers of compounds are shelved because pursuing them is simply not a good business idea. Such decisions result in lost drugs from which patients could have benefited. This issue is unresolved but has not gone unnoticed and some initiatives have attempted to offer remedies by incentivising the pharmaceutical industry to open their libraries of unused compounds.2 Provided that companies or academic institutions are able to make an unused compound available, funds must be secured to support clinical trials and the process to keep it advancing in the pipeline.
Masters and Nutt respond to this very issue of funding with a controversial suggestion.3 According to their ‘plutocratic proposal’ rich people who suffer from a disease, for which such an untested shelved compound is a good candidate, …
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- A Plutocratic Proposal: an ethical way for rich patients to pay for a place on a clinical trial
- Donor-funded research: permissible, not perfect
- Acceptability of donor funding for clinical trials in the UK: a qualitative empirical ethics study using focus groups to elicit the views of research patient public involvement group members, research ethics committee chairs and clinical researchers
- From protection to entitlement: selecting research subjects for early phase clinical trials involving breakthrough therapies
- Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the sequestration thesis—learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy
- Fair, just and compassionate: A pilot for making allocation decisions for patients requesting experimental drugs outside of clinical trials
- The role of clinical trials in the sustainability of the Italian national health service cancer drug expenditure
- Achieving equal and timely access to innovative anticancer drugs in the European Union (EU): summary of a multidisciplinary CECOG-driven roundtable discussion with a focus on Eastern and South-Eastern EU countries
- Towards the patient revolution
- Engaging African ancestry participants in SLE clinical trials