I just noticed this attracted some downvotes and comments. I should have been clearer. My curiosity was piqued by this:<p>&gt; acquisition of promising drug candidates is a major input to the
&gt; pipeline at the big drug companies. It enables separation of
&gt; concerns: small startups to develop the drugs and big
&gt; experienced companies to bring them to market. Creating an
&gt; artificial distinction between inventors and acquirers precludes
&gt; that efficient division of labor.<p>I wonder how many small pharma startups are successful. Is this really &quot;effective separation of concerns&quot;? Seems more like standard capitalist market dynamics: allow small-fries to take all the risk -- those that sink disappear; those that succeed might get bought out.<p>Is this really the best way to drive innovation in pharma? But... that&#x27;s a discussion about markets.<p>Also, without researching the history of every drug produced by any major pharma corp, I can&#x27;t blithely accept whether acquisition of &quot;promising drug candidates&quot; is or is not a &quot;major input&quot; to their pipeline. I&#x27;m not denying<i>whether</i> this happens, just asking to what degree -- just saying &quot;citation needed&quot; for that particular point.<p>I&#x27;m certainly not denying that some small pharma companies are successful, and that some get bought up by large pharma companies. That wasn&#x27;t my question, and I should have been clearer.