Here’s a heretical statement: We don’t spend enough money on high-priced cancer drugs.

Even with the coming of a new drug reimbursement environment that emphasizes profound innovation, don't expect to see the end of incremental  biopharma innovation just yet.

The decision by Angelina Jolie to undergo a double mastectomy after tests determined she carried a genetic mutation that elevated her chances of developing breast or ovarian cancer has led to renewed calls for expanded genetic screening. It has also raised a disconcerting question-could genetic testing actually be harmful to your health?

As drug companies take divergent strategies focused either on research or cutting costs, what might this mean for the path future companies take in the pharmaceutical industry?

High-profile technology companies are revered by society while pharmaceutical companies developing life-saving technologies are viewed with contempt; why the disparity?

The tragic deaths of 55 Americans and sickening of more than 740, resulting from contaminated steroid injections that were shipped by a disreputable firm in Massachusetts, have rightly focused public attention on a largely unfamiliar, but prominent part of our drug supply chain – the practice of pharmacy compounding.

The enormous energy and possibility found in Silicon Valley should be harnessed in the most pressing work of developing entirely new therapies and technologies to answer healthcare's most complex questions.

Scott Gottlieb's testimony for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health's hearing on drug compounding.

Click here to watch Resident Fellow Scott Gottlieb debate the hazards of the FDA on Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates.

Drug companies -- at least every one that I've worked with -- would like to develop important new medicines that improve health and save lives. That's what gets every industry researcher I know up in the morning, and what keeps them going through the many highs and lows that characterize the scientific process.