<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Company &#8211; SCIENCE TECH UNIVERSITY</title>
	<atom:link href="https://sciencetechuniversity.com/category/company/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://sciencetechuniversity.com</link>
	<description>Your University of Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2023 08:48:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Why One Drug Company Held Back a Better Drug</title>
		<link>https://sciencetechuniversity.com/why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug/</link>
					<comments>https://sciencetechuniversity.com/why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[web_boss_university]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2023 08:48:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Company]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://sciencetechuniversity.com/2023/09/08/why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p><img width="1050" height="550" src="https://sciencetechuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/38-why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug" decoding="async" fetchpriority="high" srcset="https://sciencetechuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/38-why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug.jpg 1050w, https://sciencetechuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/38-why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug-300x157.jpg 300w, https://sciencetechuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/38-why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug-1024x536.jpg 1024w, https://sciencetechuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/38-why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug-768x402.jpg 768w, https://sciencetechuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/38-why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug-260x136.jpg 260w" sizes="(max-width: 1050px) 100vw, 1050px" style="width:100%;height:52.38%;max-width:1050px;" /></p>Drug companies say patents spur innovation. Can they also do the opposite? More episodes ofThe Daily Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts &#124; Spotify &#124; Stitcher &#124; Amazon Music For decades, drugmakers have argued that patents are critical to bringing new drugs to the market. But in 2004, when a promising H.I.V. treatment emerged, Gilead&#8230; <a class="more-link" href="https://sciencetechuniversity.com/why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug/">Continue reading <span class="screen-reader-text">Why One Drug Company Held Back a Better Drug</span></a>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img width="1050" height="550" src="https://sciencetechuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/38-why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug.jpg" class="attachment-post-thumbnail size-post-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug" decoding="async" srcset="https://sciencetechuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/38-why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug.jpg 1050w, https://sciencetechuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/38-why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug-300x157.jpg 300w, https://sciencetechuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/38-why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug-1024x536.jpg 1024w, https://sciencetechuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/38-why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug-768x402.jpg 768w, https://sciencetechuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/38-why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug-260x136.jpg 260w" sizes="(max-width: 1050px) 100vw, 1050px" style="width:100%;height:52.38%;max-width:1050px;" /></p><header data-breakpoint>
<div data-testid="default-layout">
<div>
<p><h2>Drug companies say patents spur innovation. Can they also do the opposite?</h2>
</p>
</div>
<div data-recirc-bar-item="true">
<p><span>More episodes of</span><span>The Daily</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</header>
<section name="articleBody">
<div>
<h3 id="link-5b5206f5"><span><strong><em>Listen and follow The Daily</em></strong><br /><strong><em>Apple Podcasts</em></strong><strong><em> | </em></strong><strong><em>Spotify</em></strong><strong><em> | </em></strong><strong><em>Stitcher</em></strong><strong><em> | </em></strong><strong><em>Amazon Music</em></strong></span></h3>
<hr>
<p>For decades, drugmakers have argued that patents are critical to bringing new drugs to the market. But in 2004, when a promising H.I.V. treatment emerged, Gilead Sciences decided to slow-walk its release to maximize profit on the company’s existing patents.</p>
<p>Rebecca Robbins, who covers the pharmaceutical industry for The Times, discusses one man’s case and how patents can create perverse incentives to delay new and better drugs.</p>
<hr>
</div>
<div>
<p><h3 id="link-6db2a945"><span><strong>On today’s episode</strong></span></h3>
</p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p><img decoding="async" alt src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/02/09/reader-center/author-rebecca-robbins/author-rebecca-robbins-square320.png"></p>
</div>
<p><strong>Rebecca Robbins</strong>, a business reporter covering the pharmaceutical industry for The New York Times.</p>
</div>
<div data-testid="photoviewer-wrapper">
<figure aria-label="media" role="group">
<div>
<p><span>Image</span></p>
<picture><source media="(max-width: 599px) and (min-device-pixel-ratio: 3),(max-width: 599px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 3),(max-width: 599px) and (min-resolution: 3dppx),(max-width: 599px) and (min-resolution: 288dpi)" ><source media="(max-width: 599px) and (min-device-pixel-ratio: 2),(max-width: 599px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2),(max-width: 599px) and (min-resolution: 2dppx),(max-width: 599px) and (min-resolution: 192dpi)" ><source media="(max-width: 599px) and (min-device-pixel-ratio: 1),(max-width: 599px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 1),(max-width: 599px) and (min-resolution: 1dppx),(max-width: 599px) and (min-resolution: 96dpi)" ><img alt="Four blue pills against a white surface." src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/09/07/multimedia/07daily-gilead-image/07DAILY-truvada-audio-app-ltqh-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&#038;auto=webp&#038;disable=upscale"   decoding="async" width="600" height="419"></picture></div><figcaption><span aria-hidden="false">Gilead postponed a new version of an H.I.V. therapy, allowing the drugmaker to maximize profit on other products,  documents showed.</span><span><span>Credit&#8230;</span><span><span aria-hidden="false">Thor Swift for The New York Times</span></span></span></figcaption></figure>
</div>
<div>
<hr>
<p>Rebecca Robbins contributed reporting.</p>
<p>Fact-checking by Nicole Pasulka and Susan Lee.</p>
<p>The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad and Olivia Natt.</p>
<p>Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.</p>
</div>
</section>
<div id="bottom-wrapper">
<p>Advertisement</p>
<p>SKIP ADVERTISEMENT</p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://sciencetechuniversity.com/why-one-drug-company-held-back-a-better-drug/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
