[__P]

If it was not 'for-profit' and public. It could be shared more freely. Meaning you'd ideally have a global effort towards drug R&D. This would easily dwarf any number the current US pharmaceuticals invest, or the NIH budget. Advances would be shared and make the cost of an advance cheaper.

Also if it were open (globally) countries could be the checks and balances for each other.

And no, pharma don't need marketing. Marketing is always used to trick people into buying things, or to create brand awareness, it's never about the good of the recipient. Dr's could simply have a database where they look up drugs and supporting material (i.e pull information rather than push marketing).

[aianus]

How does one decide who to fund? You're going to have every half-baked 'researcher' getting in line for their free funding. A whole industry of lawyers and consultants will pop up specializing in gaming the system to get funding for their clients. I don't trust any system designed around spending other people's money. It inevitably leads to waste and corruption.

[rlanday]

Marketing is solely about tricking people into buying things? What about informing people of goods and services they might want but didn’t know about?

[rlpb]

> What about informing people of goods and services they might want but didn’t know about?

If marketing didn't exist, this need could easily be fulfilled by organizations acting on behalf of the buyers. Consumer buying guides and professional industry-specific journalists publishing reviews are examples.

[rlanday]

Yeah, and we can replace capitalism with a more efficient centrally-planned economy. In theory.