Chris - there no no doubt money is a HUGE driver in the pharma industry, just look at all the non-insulin T2 meds with highly questionable safety history.
The initial issue with the analogs was safety. Initial development of the analogs did not go well. By the end of the 1980’s Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk were both working on a “Rapid” acting analog. Initially, Novo Nordisk took the lead and they were working on an AspB10 analogue. The goal was to develop a monomer insulin. The “Holy Grail”of insulins.
Their approach was to alter the amino-acid composition in such a way that the insulin molecule would no longer self-associate to hexamers around a zinc atom. The amino-acid at position B10, a histidine, was known to be involved in zinc binding and so it seemed rational to replace this with the negatively charged amino acid aspartic acid which is where the name AspB10.
The first tests of this new insulin analogue were promising. Absorption after subcutaneous injection was indeed twice as fast as absorption of human insulin. The first clinical study in humans demonstrated that postprandial glucose peaks decreased compared to regular human insulin.
It was the first “Rapid”analogue tested in humans. However, while the phase 2 trials in humans were underway the scientists back in the lab revealed a dose-dependent increase in mammary tumors in female rats. In simple words, they killed the rats back in the lab.
After that everyone got gun shy of the long term effects. Twenty years later the argument goes on http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2016/01/05/dc15-1816