3 ms·
Yes but it also skews the incentives. The cure for diabetes has little meaning to pharmas. They want to keep people alive but paying for rest of their lives. Th
by saiya-jin 8y ago
Yes but it also skews the incentives. The cure for diabetes has little meaning to pharmas. They want to keep people alive but paying for rest of their lives. That's how money shape commercial research
- reallydude 8y ago> The cure for diabetes has little meaning to pharmas Unless you're the first to cure. The income, grants, and knowledge drain in your favor? People will continue to get diabetes and a treatment will cure it.
- skookumchuck 8y ago> The cure for diabetes has little meaning to pharmas 1. ABC develops an effective treatment for diabetes, but you have to take it for life. 2. DEF develops a cure for diabetes. Which one do you think is going to make more money? The only way ABC can make money is if a cure cannot be developed, or ABC somehow convinced the government to ban DEF's cure. Your theory reminds me of the 1970s when everyone was sure that 100 mpg carburetors existed but the oil companies bought up all the patents for it so they could sell more gas.