We just had thread about Mexican antivenom developed in Mexico that costs $100 a dose in Mexico and $40,000 a dose in the United States. The clinical trials to approve the drug in the US were run the government. The $39,900 price difference is sheer avarice.

That is certainly a ridiculous markup. The company can't even claim that its recovering costs for clinical trials.

That said, the article is a little misleading about research. There's basic research, where a compound is synthesized, for example. Then there's research to develop the product for market. Most basic research doesn't lead to a patent, much less being marketable.

Most of the basic research is done by either universities or government labs. Here's a link to an example at Purdue.

http://www.purdueresearchfoundation.org/otc/index.asp

As the above link notes, the foundation then licenses the rights to companies. These companies perform the clinical trials and apply to the FDA for approval to market the technology/compound.

Other major universities have similar research foundations. Most University researchers also publish papers on their research, after the school applies for a patent or three.

Larger companies do use molecular modeling software to see if there are similar compounds to something in scientific papers that they can synthesize and test. This often results in multiple patents because the company lawyers try to write patent applications as broadly as possible, just to make sure Company Z down the road doesn't use their molecular modeling software and find a better compound.

FWIW, I worked at several companies supporting the research community's computing needs in a past life.

PM