3 ms·

The incentives for market-based research aren't wrong, but they do have a limit. Investors aren't going to spend ten billion dollars on research to find a cure

The incentives for market-based research aren't wrong, but they do have a limit. Investors aren't going to spend ten billion dollars on research to find a cure they expect to make only one billion dollars profit from. They aren't running charities. Many other people are running charities, of course, especially for cancers. If you want to help fund them you can. Many people do. The govt also funds a ton of research. As for the motivation to not pursue a profitable cure because you'd rather make more money from treatments, this isn't really the options you get to choose from. The real game they play is to choose either to find and sell the cure if one exists, or to sit back and watch the just-as-smart competition find and sell that cure instead of them. Their profitable treatment loses out either way. Cancer affects many many people who are healthy otherwise and would have had many more productive years. It isn't just a disease of old age. Especially breast cancer. Either way, elderly folks are the most prolific voters, so there's the incentive situation for the govt.

codeflow2202 6y ago
I'd love to believe in this free market utopia where the end result is always in the best interest of the community. In reality it's well known that companies rely on cartels to protect their shared interests. We can't know if pharmaceuticals are actively holding back any cure but it would be naive to completely trust organizations which only need to answer to their shareholders.
gadf 6y ago
I'd say pretty clearly if you hold back a cure for breast cancer because you can't get investors to put in 10 billion dollars when you're going to make one billion on it but long-term treatments for breast cancer at various stages they're going to make 100 billion on that 10 billion I'd say pretty clearly the incentives are wrong in that case. Because you're enabling research through investment which judges value purely on a monetary basis but it's ignoring the value of human life. So I'd say pretty clear that it's not just a case of the incentives having a limit, the incentives are wrong in that case.

codeflow2202 6y ago

I'd love to believe in this free market utopia where the end result is always in the best interest of the community. In reality it's well known that companies rely on cartels to protect their shared interests. We can't know if pharmaceuticals are actively holding back any cure but it would be naive to completely trust organizations which only need to answer to their shareholders.

gadf 6y ago

I'd say pretty clearly if you hold back a cure for breast cancer because you can't get investors to put in 10 billion dollars when you're going to make one billion on it but long-term treatments for breast cancer at various stages they're going to make 100 billion on that 10 billion I'd say pretty clearly the incentives are wrong in that case. Because you're enabling research through investment which judges value purely on a monetary basis but it's ignoring the value of human life. So I'd say pretty clear that it's not just a case of the incentives having a limit, the incentives are wrong in that case.