On the other hand at least some of that research and design and construction is done purely with profit in mind - how can we build more, more quickly, at lower cost ?

The Rolls Royce issue is a case in point, we would not have the jet engines that we have now were it not for Government decrees that they should be quieter (not least decrees from the USA) and less poluting, accompanied by a different requirement to make them run more efficiently (cheaper).

Compare any new aircraft and the noise it makes upon take-off ( I live 1 mile away from an airport ) with any old video of a Boeing 707 taking off, when you sat inside one of those you knew that something dramatic and noisy was happening outside because it was dramatic and noisy INSIDE - also check out the exhaust output from one of those and you'll see how poluting they were - then bare in mind that the first solution to make those aircraft bigger was simply to add more of the same engines to them.

Many of which are conducted by the countries finest universities.

id agree with most of that. I wouldn’t simply remove patent protection but there needs to be a fundamental restructure of the relationship between the state, the public, academia and Big Pharma for numerous reasons, some which you mention, other such as the lies, lies of omission, and general bending of the truth which has become commonplace in medicine because there can be quite a big discrepancy between what is good for the patient and what is good for the drug company. Not to mention the uncomfortable relationship we should all see between doctors and Big Pharma and marketing and Big Pharma. Im also not keen on the duplication of research being done by competing big pharma companies. That seems 'inefficient' when it could be done more collaboratively in an academic setting.

As I said earlier, there is a place for drug companies, but for me the relationship should always be the Jonas Salk creating the thing, where it can be done through academia, where it can be peer reviewed, where all information is made public, where the aim is the truth and the answer, not the money, and the Eli Lilly manufacturing the thing.

The other problem with big pharma is they are less inclined to find cures for illnesses or conditions, preferring instead to find treatments. There's no real money in cures

If bigpharma1 invents a treatment that doesn't cure, and bigpharma2 invents a treatment that provides a permanent cure, who gets the business?

Whoever pays the biggest kickback to the state/doctor?

You can never trust the state. The one business with the most scope to create and abuse a monopoly.

Never trust big business. It exists solely and purely and unequivocally to take your money.

I have to ask who would you trust more to prescribe the best drug for you, to you. Your NHS GP, or your friendly local Glaxosmithkline sales rep?

Unlike the state, big business (why do you differentiate from small business here?) can't force you to hand over your money.

AFAIK, Glaxosmithkline produce drugs, rather than prescribe them.

Quote: Richie "Unlike the state, big business (why do you differentiate from small business here?) can't force you to hand over your money. AFAIK, Glaxosmithkline produce drugs, rather than prescribe them.'" When talking about Big Pharma, they pretty much can. When death or Illness is the alternative. You are kind of over a barrel. www.phillipsandcohen.com/P-C-New ... ment.shtml Big Business, doing what big business does. I can only ask again, who would you trust to prescribe you the best drugs for you. Your local NHS GP, or friendly local GSK sales rep?

Quote: Richie "Unlike the state, big business (why do you differentiate from small business here?) can't force you to hand over your money. AFAIK, Glaxosmithkline produce drugs, rather than prescribe them.'" When talking about Big Pharma, they pretty much can. When death or Illness is the alternative. You are kind of over a barrel. www.phillipsandcohen.com/P-C-New ... ment.shtml Big Business, doing what big business does. I can only ask again, who would you trust to prescribe you the best drugs for you. Your local NHS GP, or friendly local GSK sales rep?

It exists solely to MAKE money, it normally does this in exchange for goods or services, if people don't intrinsically trust a company it fails.

What has happened in the last decade is big business having failed to grow their market, are in a saturated market or a shrinking market have looked at way of growing the bottom line without expanding the business, this has meant squeezing wages of the majority of its work force, finding new and not always legal ways to evade tax and their social responsibilities.

This is by no mean all big businesses and many major companies have invested in the work force, treated them as valued employees and let them have a say in the direction of the company, John Lewis for instance, makes good gross profits, treats its employees fairly, pays them a fair wage all while still maintaining a good bottom line.

Most of us are not completely anti big business (I'm certainly not) and see its place in the world as one of bring benefits, however big business does need reminding of its responsibilities not only to shareholders but to its stakeholders too, its employees, suppliers and its customers.

We should be looking to the entrepreneurs of the past such as Lever, Roundtree and Cadbury to see how businesses can thrive and build huge brands while not being dicks.

I think there is space for a variety of approaches here. Whilst some customers like the behaviour of JLP and Richer Sounds and will pay a premium for it, there are others who prefer the likes of Aldi and Ryanair. Horses for courses etc,

Well done for completely ignoring 99% of my point and focusing solely on price, oh BTW Richer Sounds is a discounter not a premium retailer.