3 ms·

Regarding vaccines and altruism I suggest you read up on Jonas Salk, who developed one of the first successful polio vaccines[1] Money quote from linked articl

Regarding vaccines and altruism I suggest you read up on Jonas Salk, who developed one of the first successful polio vaccines[1] Money quote from linked article: "News of the vaccine's success was first made public on April 12, 1955.[7] Salk was immediately hailed as a "miracle worker", and chose to not patent the vaccine or seek any profit from it in order to maximize its global distribution." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk

bumby 6y ago
Not to take anything away from his contribution, but it's a bit more complicated with Salk. The organizations who funded the research looked into the viability of a patent and concluded it wouldn't have succeeded. "the idea of patenting the vaccine had been directly analyzed and the decision was made not to apply for a patent mainly because it would not result in one."[1] The distinction should also be made that a patent doesn't necessarily affect global distribution. It just gives the rights to license the technology. They could have patented it and then licensed it for free. [1]https://www.bio.org/blogs/real-reason-why-salk-refused-patent-polio-vaccine https://www.bio.org/blogs/real-reason-why-salk-refused-paten...
- CaptainZapp 6y ago
  Interesting read. Thank you. It doesn't really scratch at his integrity though, since it was the institution he worked for that raised the issue. If he was just a brilliant salesman (apart from a brilliant scientist) we never know. What is beyond dispute is that his discovery saved (arguably) millions of people from a life in misery.
WalterBright 6y ago
I do not dispute that altruistic people exist, and often do great things. But I also know that my grandmother suffered terribly from rheumatoid arthritis, and it destroyed her life. Long after she died, enbrel was developed for profit which was the first really successful treatment for it. No profits => no treatment => misery. You can sit around waiting for and hoping for someone to step up and sacrifice their time and money for your benefit, but I prefer the much more reliable method of paying them.

bumby 6y ago

Not to take anything away from his contribution, but it's a bit more complicated with Salk. The organizations who funded the research looked into the viability of a patent and concluded it wouldn't have succeeded. "the idea of patenting the vaccine had been directly analyzed and the decision was made not to apply for a patent mainly because it would not result in one."[1] The distinction should also be made that a patent doesn't necessarily affect global distribution. It just gives the rights to license the technology. They could have patented it and then licensed it for free. [1]https://www.bio.org/blogs/real-reason-why-salk-refused-patent-polio-vaccine https://www.bio.org/blogs/real-reason-why-salk-refused-paten...

CaptainZapp 6y ago
Interesting read. Thank you. It doesn't really scratch at his integrity though, since it was the institution he worked for that raised the issue. If he was just a brilliant salesman (apart from a brilliant scientist) we never know. What is beyond dispute is that his discovery saved (arguably) millions of people from a life in misery.

WalterBright 6y ago

I do not dispute that altruistic people exist, and often do great things. But I also know that my grandmother suffered terribly from rheumatoid arthritis, and it destroyed her life. Long after she died, enbrel was developed for profit which was the first really successful treatment for it. No profits => no treatment => misery. You can sit around waiting for and hoping for someone to step up and sacrifice their time and money for your benefit, but I prefer the much more reliable method of paying them.