Well, ok, on a serious note then, one problem with that as the only model for developing drugs is that you would only go for where the money is (or at the least more emphasis goes there). A company's true calling after all is to make money, and there's nothing wrong with that (if you don't, the company goes away, and that's bad too). However, there is more money in Viagra and Rogaine than a cure for some tropical fever, for instance. The human suffering from the fever is greater, but there's more money in good hair and a certain spring in your step, so unless your male impotency cure that fails to make sales rise or your baldness cure that leaves profits denuded cures the fever, well, the next set of trials may still be for the best drugs of those ilk and not the fever.

The full truth is more in the middle of course, but it is still an issue.

And the advertising of prescription drugs to patients (ask your doctor if enormaturgid is right for you) is an interesting development in the effort to drive sales independent of what a doctor may feel is the way to go. This is interesting in the context of recent studies that show that new drugs for depression and schizophrenia were no more effective (and in some cases less so) but more expensive than the old standards. But the new drugs get the advertising, and when the doctor fills out the script he has the patient saying "I'd like to ask you if FeelzMoreGooder is right for me"... And the doctor reaches for the free samples, and writes a script for more with the freebie pen and paper that has the logo.

One might say that ethical lines have been crossed, but on the other hand a drug company should be able to market and advertise.

Food for thought, I don't purport to have the answer.

Was this thread about sailing?