3 ms·
I don't understand the difference between intentionally suppressing researchers, which they are obviously not doing (that would be ghastly) and directing resear
by whatshisface 5y ago
I don't understand the difference between intentionally suppressing researchers, which they are obviously not doing (that would be ghastly) and directing research towards the most profitable drugs, which they are obviously doing (to do otherwise would be bad business).
- dekhn 5y agothe former is an ethics violation, the latter is just a good strategy to win against the multi-armed bandit (which is how resource portfolios are managed at pharma). many pharma do invest some of their portfolio into things that are unlikely to have short-term or any payoff, and many of them also maintain compassionate programs to get expensive drugs to people who wouldn't be able to otherwise afford them. They do this because they are highly profitable, which unfortunately is as much explained by their marketing acumen as much as it is by solid research and development.
- whatshisface 5y agoOkay, so if I'm getting this straight, instructing researchers to not research unprofitable drugs is an ethics violation, while instructing them to research profitable ones is good strategy.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoIf you have finite budget and finite researchers, you allocate them where are the most ROI is. Researchers aren't settling sitting idly by.