3 ms·
I'm really not suggesting active suppression, but rather simple, Occam-compliant inaction. COVID19, for example, is not really the first of its kind - just the
by toyg 5y ago
I'm really not suggesting active suppression, but rather simple, Occam-compliant inaction. COVID19, for example, is not really the first of its kind - just the first that was clearly going to produce profits if addressed. And lo, magically, it was.
Mine was not a conspiracy-innuendo, but rather a simple critique of profit-driven research in health-related sciences. Humans can do wonderful things when they work together, so it's rather sad that we seem to do that only when there are riches on the line.
- rewq4321 5y ago> but rather a simple critique of profit-driven research in health-related sciences But as a private company they need profit to fund the science. They'd go out of business if they weren't making a profit. It's largely the role of government to fund public goods (e.g. by providing grants to university researchers). We can't expect the scientists and engineers to work for free.
- nickthemagicman 5y agoit seems like kind of a false dichotomy. 1. make drugs without a profit margin available to consumers and researchers 2. go out of business. It seems like there's plenty of grey area in there.
- toyg 5y ago> But as a private company they need profit to fund the science. Yes, as a private company. In my opinion, it's not like everything has to be a private profit-driven company, precisely because incentives are not necessarily aligned to the public good.