ok this is on the long side - my apologies

i imagine there will be lots of things i haven't thought of in your response, but please bear with me.

Novartis/Sandoz/Roche/Orion, Teva/Ivax, Mylan/Somerset/Watson and BMS/Dupont/Merck/Endo all have a pretty compelling vested interest in Parkinson's therapy remaining levodopa-centric – just as an example, the Novartis empire makes three levodopa products and eight adjuncts.

setting aside for the moment the cost of coming up with a completely new drug, if one did appear that actually worked, 1) it would topple the levodopa/adjunct empire, 2) it would eliminate all potential for future growth, because it would actually work, and 3) it would not be generic for some years, i.e., only one company would profit from it for X years, and all the others would lose the income they have relied on for years and years.

even a company with a vested interest were the one to come up with the new drug, and even if revenues were equivalent to what they are under the current arrangement, eventually it would go generic and without the potential growth in adjuncts, it becomes a losing venture in the long term.

and then you ladle on the cost of coming up with something brand new, which is much higher than reworking something old, et voila! the perfect recipe for the continued supremacy of the status quo!

ok so all of that goes to my point that there is little to no incentive for industry to shake it up. some are interested in neuroprotection, but what is the anticipated timeline on that, and what are we all going to do while we wait? we need a symptomatic therapy that works ASAP. There could be something in the pipeline right now, but if there is not…

so now to my question - if industry is out of the picture, who is left? academic researchers? would the prospect of a prize – a big one – what would an academic researcher consider to be a big prize - for the finding of a therapy that works (or a cure - i would take a cure, too) have a beneficial affect on the timeline?