5 ms·

Does anyone actually make the conscious decision to avoid curing diseases because of its limited profitability?

S_Daedalus 10y ago
It's just, "How business is done" and it's rarely if ever questioned.
bsenftner 10y ago
Doubtful one person, but a board of directors choosing where to maintain, increase, or reduce investment does. And their legal fiduciary duty is to maximize profits. That is the system's design right there.
- D-Coder 10y ago
  "their legal fiduciary duty is to maximize profits" actually is not true. Although it's of course a very common motive.
  - curried_haskell 10y ago
    I would tone the statement down, but it's still true that the number one purpose of a for-profit business is to generate profit. All other activity, in general, is secondary to profit. It's like saying a human doesn't need to eat. Sure, sometimes healthy people go without food to achieve a goal, and a few rare people sacrifice themselves for the common good. But these people are exceptions to the rule. It might more profitable to find a cure, but often business is blinded by short term rather than the long game.
    - tome 10y ago
      I don't think that's true at all. In the UK at least I believe there is some expectation that a limited company will return profits to shareholders, but besides that the shareholders and directors can set the priorities of the company to be anything they want. If you know of anything to the contrary I would be very interested to hear it!
    - karmajunkie 10y ago
      I'm not sure what there is to tone down. The statement is patently untrue.[1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...
    - 50CNT 10y ago
      You could argue just as well that the number two purpose of an organization is to generate profit. Profit is a necessity to achieve your primary goals. People need to eat, but you'd have to be a pretty uninspired person if your number one purpose is meeting your caloric expenditures.
martincmartin 10y ago
Sure, there are all sorts of rare diseases that could be cured, but there's no money to do the research. People have fundraisers to try to make it profitable, e.g. [1] [1] http://www.finleyfighters.com/ http://www.finleyfighters.com/
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Well that's because the diseases are rare. Regardless of profit, it makes no sense to work on a drug that will save 20 lives, when you could work on one that saves 200 lives. Another part of the problem is that the cost of getting drugs approved is ridiculously high.
huherto 10y ago
Not a conspiracy. It is just a matter of where the market incentives are.

It's just, "How business is done" and it's rarely if ever questioned.

Doubtful one person, but a board of directors choosing where to maintain, increase, or reduce investment does. And their legal fiduciary duty is to maximize profits. That is the system's design right there.

D-Coder 10y ago
"their legal fiduciary duty is to maximize profits" actually is not true. Although it's of course a very common motive.
- curried_haskell 10y ago
  I would tone the statement down, but it's still true that the number one purpose of a for-profit business is to generate profit. All other activity, in general, is secondary to profit. It's like saying a human doesn't need to eat. Sure, sometimes healthy people go without food to achieve a goal, and a few rare people sacrifice themselves for the common good. But these people are exceptions to the rule. It might more profitable to find a cure, but often business is blinded by short term rather than the long game.
  - tome 10y ago
    I don't think that's true at all. In the UK at least I believe there is some expectation that a limited company will return profits to shareholders, but besides that the shareholders and directors can set the priorities of the company to be anything they want. If you know of anything to the contrary I would be very interested to hear it!
  - karmajunkie 10y ago
    I'm not sure what there is to tone down. The statement is patently untrue.[1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...
  - 50CNT 10y ago
    You could argue just as well that the number two purpose of an organization is to generate profit. Profit is a necessity to achieve your primary goals. People need to eat, but you'd have to be a pretty uninspired person if your number one purpose is meeting your caloric expenditures.

martincmartin 10y ago

Sure, there are all sorts of rare diseases that could be cured, but there's no money to do the research. People have fundraisers to try to make it profitable, e.g. [1] [1] http://www.finleyfighters.com/ http://www.finleyfighters.com/

Houshalter 10y ago
Well that's because the diseases are rare. Regardless of profit, it makes no sense to work on a drug that will save 20 lives, when you could work on one that saves 200 lives. Another part of the problem is that the cost of getting drugs approved is ridiculously high.

huherto 10y ago

Not a conspiracy. It is just a matter of where the market incentives are.