# Why are drugs so hard to make and take so long to come out on the market? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 17, 2014, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700 "2014-09-17T01:37:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/21 "2014-09-18T22:17:46Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > **Why** Because – and we can’t say this too many times – biology is not mathematics or electronics. There are more than 20,000 protein-producing genes in the human body, many of which produce multiple proteins. There are several times more whose function is to regulate those proteins. Those aren’t just necessarily A affects B interactions, either. Protein A could affect dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of operations in the body. Out of all those millions of actions, reactions and interactions, scientists must find a) which ones are bad, b) something that actually turns the bad off, c) without damaging all the good actions, reactions, and interactions, d) that works consistently enough to be considered “safe and effective,” and e) can actually be produced in the real world. And then, you have to test and retest the compound to make sure it’s actually having an effect, not just a coincidence. You have to test it over time to make sure the body doesn’t rebel against it. And you have to test it in different populations to make sure its effects are predictable in men or women, old or young people, and so on. Certainly computers and models can help. Computers are very good at going through huge amounts of data and uncovering trends that would take humans forever (if they noticed at all.) But the process is completely different from developing a faster computer chip, so thinking that having a computer that’s 10 times faster will lead to discoveries coming 10 times faster is simply wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/22 "2014-09-18T22:33:24Z")
Incidentally, **sweat209** , the same reasons, more or less, apply to the “stagnating technology” thread you started a while back. Innovation in medicine is almost guaranteed to occur, but it is not the case we can predict or even absolutely specify the pace or direction of such innovation. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/23 "2014-09-23T18:23:26Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > Because – and we can’t say this too many times – biology is not mathematics or electronics. > > There are more than 20,000 protein-producing genes in the human body, many of which produce multiple proteins. There are several times more whose function is to regulate those proteins. Those aren’t just necessarily A affects B interactions, either. Protein A could affect dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of operations in the body. > > Out of all those millions of actions, reactions and interactions, scientists must find a) which ones are bad, b) something that actually turns the bad off, c) without damaging all the good actions, reactions, and interactions, d) that works consistently enough to be considered “safe and effective,” and e) can actually be produced in the real world. > > And then, you have to test and retest the compound to make sure it’s actually having an effect, not just a coincidence. You have to test it over time to make sure the body doesn’t rebel against it. And you have to test it in different populations to make sure its effects are predictable in men or women, old or young people, and so on. > > Certainly computers and models can help. Computers are very good at going through huge amounts of data and uncovering trends that would take humans forever (if they noticed at all.) > > But the process is completely different from developing a faster computer chip, so thinking that having a computer that’s 10 times faster will lead to discoveries coming 10 times faster is simply wrong. But you still did not answer the question above. **Because if side effects or testing is the main bottleneck all the money or young people going to school to be medical researchers are not going to speed things up.** And will take a long time. If it was not for side effects most cancers will have cure by now. Remember chemotherapy can make you very ill or even kill you.You want better results you can up the chemotherapy but that will kill you. If side effects or testing is the main bottleneck than I’m not sure how we can fix that. > [@](#): > > Innovation in medicine is almost guaranteed to occur, but it is not the case we can predict or even absolutely specify the pace or direction of such innovation. The public things in terms of year or two with technology advances.But medicine and drugs 10 to 15 years if the main bottleneck is studies and research on new drugs and testing takes 10 to 15 years. So it not technology slow down it is bottleneck that takes 10 to 15 years. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/24 "2014-09-23T18:53:05Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > But you still did not answer the question above. He gave you an EXCELLENT answer. You did not understand it. > [@](#): > > If it was not for side effects most cancers will have cure by now. This is so trivially obvious as to be meaningless. We could kill each and every disease in existence by shooting it with a gun, if not for the pesky “bleeding out and dying” side effect. It’s like saying, “If it weren’t for the fact that I’m too heavy, not muscular enough, and don’t have wings, I could fly!” > [@](#): > > If side effects or testing is the main bottleneck than I’m not sure how we can fix that. Money. Sadly, the only really productive thing we can do is throw money at the problem. More money gets more people, with more talent and brains, working on more problems, in more ways. That’s the best we can do. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, public funding for science in the US is horrible and getting worse, and neither political party shows any sign of ever doing anything about it. The only other group with the required finances is private pharmaceutical companies, and half the population thinks they’re evil. And they will only fund projects that are likely to produce a return on the investment. ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/25 "2014-09-24T06:16:47Z")
Why? Because the easy ones have been done. No great mystery here. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/26 "2014-09-24T08:10:10Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > Okay so the big bottleneck is how to make molecules that dock into a receptor site or problem with side effects or testing? Or All three? All three, and more, such as figuring out what receptor sites exist and are relevant. > [@sweat209](#): > > But you still did not answer the question above. > > **Because if side effects or testing is the main bottleneck all the money or young people going to school to be medical researchers are not going to speed things up.** Nonsense. Whatever would make you think that? The more people you have working on a problem and the more money they have to spend on research and testing, the more stuff they can test in a given time period, so it will take less time to find something that works. It will never be a 5 minute job, but there is plenty of scope for speeding things up with more money and with training and hiring more people. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/27 "2014-10-01T17:42:13Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Money. Sadly, the only really productive thing we can do is throw money at the problem. More money gets more people, with more talent and brains, working on more problems, in more ways. That’s the best we can do. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, public funding for science in the US is horrible and getting worse, and neither political party shows any sign of ever doing anything about it. The only other group with the required finances is private pharmaceutical companies, and half the population thinks they’re evil. And they will only fund projects that are likely to produce a return on the investment. The US spends more on healthcare than any country in the world.A large junk of the GDP is spent on healthcare.The sad thing is run away healthcare costs in the US. And no no sign of slowing down.It is getting more and more out of control. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/28 "2014-10-01T17:56:20Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > He gave you an EXCELLENT answer. You did not understand it. Read the thread again. Q .Why are drugs so hard to make and take so long to come out on the market? Reload this Page Reply to Thread A. Thanks to computers they can run hundreds of tests at a time. Computers, however, do not speed up the time it takes for a tumor to develop, or the time it takes to shrink. A. Drugs need to be tested to be sure they don’t kill people. Ideally, this includes longitudinal studies. They need to be tested for next generation effects, too. My mother was offered thalidomide, which, fortunately, she declined. A. We still have to run all the test in real time and observe the effects over time. No way to speed that up. A Even if you can use computers to design promising molecules, you still have to figure out how to make those molecules, which can be very difficult, actually make them (which may not be easy - especially making the stuff in large enough quantities to be commercially viable), and then test them, first in vitro and on animals, and then on humans, to see if they actually work and do not have side effects worse than their benefits. A A target is not a treatment. In other words, just because it appears that hitting receptor A has an effect on B doesn’t mean it will actually work in animals or humans. A Even if your model is the world’s greatest, everything else I wrote still holds. Your molecule may not actually hit the target receptor. It may hit the receptor but not have the desired effect. It may be rather promiscuous and hit other, undesired targets as well. The pharmacokinetics may be terrible. The synthesis may be impossible, at least on any reasonable scale. A \*\*There are more than 20,000 protein-producing genes in the human body, many of which produce multiple proteins. There are several times more whose function is to regulate those proteins. Those aren’t just necessarily A affects B interactions, either. Protein A could affect dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of operations in the body. Out of all those millions of actions, reactions and interactions, scientists must find a) which ones are bad, b) something that actually turns the bad off, c) without damaging all the good actions, reactions, and interactions, d) that works consistently enough to be considered “safe and effective,” and e) can actually be produced in the real world.\*\* So yes I got many answers here why drugs are hard to make and take so log. But I guess I was looking for main bottleneck. I mean if all the above are the main bottleneck than I can see why. The last one in bold I can see why. But I guess how could we speed things up? Are things going to get better in the future? ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/29 "2014-10-01T18:56:54Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > The US spends more on healthcare than any country in the world.A large junk of the GDP is spent on healthcare.The sad thing is run away healthcare costs in the US. > > And no no sign of slowing down.It is getting more and more out of control. Spending money on health care is in no way equivalent to spending money on research and development. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/30 "2014-10-02T09:54:35Z")
The future may be smart drug delivery!! Looks very interesting what they are doing. Targeted drug delivery, sometimes called smart drug delivery,[1] is a method of delivering medication to a patient in a manner that increases the concentration of the medication in some parts of the body relative to others. The goal of a targeted drug delivery system is to prolong, localize, target and have a protected drug interaction with the diseased tissue. The conventional drug delivery system is the absorption of the drug across a biological membrane, whereas the targeted release system releases the drug in a dosage form. The advantages to the targeted release system is the reduction in the frequency of the dosages taken by the patient, having a more uniform effect of the drug, reduction of drug side-effects, and reduced fluctuation in circulating drug levels. The disadvantage of the system is high cost, which makes productivity more difficult and the reduced ability to adjust the dosages. > **[Targeted drug delivery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_drug_delivery)** > > Targeted drug delivery, sometimes called smart drug delivery, is a method of delivering medication to a patient in a manner that increases the concentration of the medication in some parts of the body relative to others. This means of delivery is largely founded on nanomedicine, which plans to employ nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery in order to combat the downfalls of conventional drug delivery. These nanoparticles would be loaded with drugs and targeted to specific parts of the body where Ta... And Targeted therapy or molecularly targeted therapy is one of the major modalities of medical treatment (pharmacotherapy) for cancer, others being hormonal therapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy. Targeted therapy blocks the growth of cancer cells by interfering with specific targeted molecules needed for carcinogenesis and tumor growth,[1] rather than by simply interfering with all rapidly dividing cells (e.g. with traditional chemotherapy). The term biologic therapy is sometimes synonymous with targeted therapy when used in the context of cancer therapy (and thus distinguished from chemotherapy, that is, cytotoxic therapy). However, the modalities can be combined; antibody-drug conjugates combine biologic and cytotoxic mechanisms into one targeted therapy. Targeted cancer therapies are expected to be more effective than older forms of treatments and less harmful to normal cells > **[Targeted therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_therapy)** > > Targeted therapy or molecularly targeted therapy is one of the major modalities of medical treatment (pharmacotherapy) for cancer, others being hormonal therapy and cytotoxic chemotherapy. As a form of molecular medicine, targeted therapy blocks the growth of cancer cells by interfering with specific targeted molecules needed for carcinogenesis and tumor growth, rather than by simply interfering with all rapidly dividing cells (e.g. with traditional chemotherapy). Because most agents for ta Anoth... ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/31 "2014-10-02T15:45:09Z")
If anyone is interested, there’s a free graduate level MOOC on Coursera that actually starts tomorrow. [Drug Discovery, Development & Commercialization](https://www.coursera.org/course/drugdiscovery): > [@](#): > > Students will learn the process of drug discovery and development through specific examples of case studies to better understand the issues facing the challenges of delivering a new drug on the market. At the completion of this course you will be able to have a better understanding of how a small or large molecule becomes a pharmaceutical drug. > > **About the Course** > > The University of California San Diego, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Drug Discovery, Development & Commercialization course focuses on drug discovery, development and commercialization. > > In this course, you will learn about the complete process of drug discovery, development, pharmacoeconomics, biosimilars, regulatory affairs, managed markets, portfolio management and strategic marketing of a new pharmaceutical drug. > > Students will also learn that shifting the current drug discovery paradigm from ‘finding new-entity drugs’ to ‘combining existing agents’ may be helpful for overcoming the current financial challenges that exist in the pharmaceutical/biotech market. > > The following course objectives will be: > > 1. Understand the pharmaceutical and biotechnology market a changing landscape > > 2. Understand the major aspects of the drug discovery process, starting with target selection, to compound screening to designing lead candidates. > > 3. Recognize current modern drug discovery based on the lock-and-key theory, which attempts to use one single compound to hit one target to combat the related disease. > > 4. Increase understanding of the various drug discovery tools and methods that are used for finding, identifying and designing a new drug. > > 5. Define and understand the regulatory responsibilities for drug discovery, including but not limited to, an Investigational New Drug Application (IND), New Drug Application (NDA), and product labeling. > > 6. Incorporate study design methods for consideration in the design of clinical protocols to access safety, tolerability, and efficacy in multiple therapeutic areas. > > 7. Identify the critical components for development of a commercialization strategy and a marketing plan to launch a new drug. Even if you don’t want to spend the time on the course, you can register for free and view the materials. There’s also a discussion forum where everyone in the course can participate and by definition has an interest in the topic. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/32 "2014-10-05T08:16:23Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > If anyone is interested, there’s a free graduate level MOOC on Coursera that actually starts tomorrow. > > [Drug Discovery, Development & Commercialization](https://www.coursera.org/course/drugdiscovery): > > Even if you don’t want to spend the time on the course, you can register for free and view the materials. There’s also a discussion forum where everyone in the course can participate and by definition has an interest in the topic. I’m very busy this year and probably next you too.May be in tow or three years from now. In a mean time a book instruction ( no pre chemistry ,biology or human body needed) would be better. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/33 "2014-10-05T08:29:09Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > Spending money on health care is in no way equivalent to spending money on research and development. Well that see. No cure for dementia ,alzheimer’s ,autoimmune disease , ( MS) neuron disease ,amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) , Parkinson ,diabetes ,Multiple sclerosis ( MS) neuron disease ,stroke patients ,spinal cord injury ,liver failure and kidney failure. And to say autoimmune disease and cancer is very bad just terrible. So I can understand the general public losing faith with modern medicine. I can see if the rate of technology progression was going at rate by 2050 all those things will have cure for. If one or two every 10 years. So I don’t see how money and more people will help. I’m sure there are hundreds of people working on these problems I’m talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/34 "2014-10-05T12:31:41Z")
Your response demonstrates exactly zero comprehension of the point of my post to which you were responding, so I don’t see much point in attempting to repeat it. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/35 "2014-10-05T15:18:21Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > So I don’t see how money and more people will help. And that’s a problem with you, not with medical research. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/36 "2014-10-05T17:36:35Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > And that’s a problem with you, not with medical research. Just because you through money at the problem does not mean it will come reality. Take the other threads similar. Like AI ,robots like in the movies ,force field ,warp drive ,starship ,laser guns ,anti-gravity ,space elevator and other stuff scfi stuff. NASA spends a lot money on out range way programs from 1996 to 2002.And time to time DARPA spends money research on this crazy programs too. Just because you’re through money at it , does not make it come reality. And some of these things may never come reality. \*\* Is the war on cancer an ‘utter failure’?: A sobering look at how billions in research money is spent\*\* > [@](#): > > The side effects John-Peter Bradford endured four years ago as he underwent radiation therapy and surgery for throat cancer were, he says, “barbaric.” Still, the potent treatment worked, eradicating the tumour and saving his life. > > As his family confronts the shock of another, more advanced malignancy today, however, the Ottawa management consultant is agonizingly aware that many cancers remain incurable, \*\*despite 40 years of hugely expensive research into the disease and how to treat it. \*\* [http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/15/war-on-cancer/?google\_editors\_picks=true](http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/15/war-on-cancer/?google_editors_picks=true) \*\* > [@](#): > > In the U.S. alone, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) — created by the Nixon administration more than 40 years ago to help fight the war — has doled out close to $ **100-billion in funding** , with hundreds of millions more raised and spent by cancer charities and hospital foundations. \*\* > **[Budget](https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget)** > > The NIH invests nearly $30.1 billion annually in medical research for the American people. > [@](#): > > he NIH invests nearly $30.1\* billion annually in medical research for the American people. > > More than 80% of the NIH’s funding is awarded through almost 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions in every state and around the world. > > About 10% of the NIH’s budget supports projects conducted by nearly 6,000 scientists in its own laboratories, most of which are on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland. Just because you throw money at it does not make it reality. Those things I talked about above they have been doing research for over 100 years and over 50% if you want to call really modern medicine. > [@](#): > > And 40% population will get cancer and one and two will die. > [@](#): > > More than 1 in 3 people in the UK will develop some form of cancer during their lifetime. > [@](#): > > Breast, lung, prostate and bowel cancers together account for over half of all new cancers each year. > [@](#): > > Half of people diagnosed with cancer now survive their disease for at least ten years. > **[Cancer incidence statistics](https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence)** > > The latest cancer Incidence statistics for the UK for Health Professionals. See data for sex, age, trends over time and more. > [@](#): > > 42% of Britons will get cancer, statistics show > [@](#): > > n the United States, cancer will affect 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women, and the number of new cases of cancer will double by 2050 Some of these statistics cancer is bit old. So if you have new statistics on percent of people who get cancer and the cancer survival rates are a bit better you can post it. It still not good. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/37 "2014-10-05T17:50:59Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > It still not good. No, it’s not. It is, however, leaps and bounds better than it used to be. And it continues to get better each year. Some problems are hard. Are you complaining that some diseases suck? Because no one is going to argue with you. Are you complaining that medical research isn’t moving fast enough? It’s not clear how fast you think research should be advancing and what steps you think should be happening. Do you care to offer some suggestions? Are you complaining that there is waste, mismanagement, and poor choices in medical research? I don’t think you’d get a major argument that some of that exists, just like it does in every human project. Exactly what are you concerned about? You haven’t articulated what the problem is that you’re trying to solve, or what you think is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/38 "2014-10-05T19:11:01Z")
I think Smeghead and some here think we spend some billions of dollars and most or some of these will have cure in 20 years from now. That is what I was saying and get at. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/39 "2014-10-05T20:15:33Z")
No. I’m saying that if we invest money and resources into research, we will have cures for diseases much much sooner than if we DON’T invest the money and resources. There no guarantees, but it should be pretty obvious that we’re unlikely to solve problems that we don’t work on. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700/40 "2014-10-05T20:29:42Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > I think Smeghead and some here think we spend some billions of dollars and most or some of these will have cure in 20 years from now. I think you’re severely misunderstanding everyone’s argument. No one has said that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-drugs-so-hard-to-make-and-take-so-long-to-come-out-on-the-market/698700.md?page=3)