That may have been true a decade ago. Sadly there's plenty of money already to be made in treating MRSA, c. difficile, mdr/xdr TB, and (terrifyingly) VRE and VRSA.
New regulations on antibiotics is essential. The thought that it's not a good idea is outside of mainstream and defies basic common sense.
edit: sadly, I disagree with you. Drug resistance can and is driving new r&d because it's killing people. New drugs will probably be more narrow spectrum and lucrative, more due to the difficulty of finding effective compounds rather than any specific intent.
I don't know if there is plenty of money to be made on the development of antibiotics, but I do know that the heads of all the big pharmaceutical companies don't think there is.
More regulation preventing the use of antibiotics won't encourage pharmaceutical companies to invest in this area, only making developing antibiotics more profitable will. This can be done in three way:
1. Encourage use of the new antibiotics so they sell more.
2. Increase the price.
3. Pay the companies directly for developing a new antibiotic (X-Prize-like approach).
My personal opinion is that option 3 is the best way, but right now there is no mechanism for doing this on anything other than a toy-scale. What won't encourage pharmaceutical companies to invest in the development of new antibiotics is to restrict their sales and increase their costs via regulation.
That may have been true a decade ago. Sadly there's plenty of money already to be made in treating MRSA, c. difficile, mdr/xdr TB, and (terrifyingly) VRE and VRSA.
New regulations on antibiotics is essential. The thought that it's not a good idea is outside of mainstream and defies basic common sense.
http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/DiseasesConnectedAR.html
edit: sadly, I disagree with you. Drug resistance can and is driving new r&d because it's killing people. New drugs will probably be more narrow spectrum and lucrative, more due to the difficulty of finding effective compounds rather than any specific intent.