I stumbled this question on r/AskScienceDiscussion, but I'd like to ask it from a microeconomics or competition standpoint.
Why can't Big Pharma accomplish what legitimate small biotechs have? Unquestionably Big Pharma has more money and can corner the market. Thus how could smaller biotechs have dawned at all? E.g. Regeneron collaborates with with Bayer and Sanofi. I'm not referring to potential pump-and-dumps like Moderna.
In Q1, Regeneron made over \$281 million from its Bayer partnership, primarily stemming from Bayer's sales of Eylea outside the U.S. It made nearly $247 million from its Sanofi collaboration, with immunology drug Dupixent the primary contributor.
FDA approved Neurocrine Biosciences`s valbenanzine in 2017. Neuocrine has collaborated with Eli Lilly and Company in 1996, GlaxoSmithkline in July 2001, Pfizer in Dec 2002, AbbVie Inc in 2010. But why didn't these Big Pharmas acquire Neurocrine?
On Jul 13 2020, Amgen doubles down on BeiGene investment. On Jul 15 2020, Nabriva inks Sivextro distribution with Merck. On Aug 6 2020, FDA lets NeuroRx, Relief Therapeutics test RLF-100 in COVID-19 patients, but why haven't Big Pharma bought out or hostilely taken over these biotechs?
Despite spending billions on R&D, big pharma doesn't punch its weight in discovering the new molecules that eventually make it to market.
Instead, it's often the smaller biotechs which are responsible for uncovering promising new therapeutic approaches, an industry maxim backed up by an April report from research group Iqvia.