4 ms·
I think the more archetypal example is that _treating_ a disease is a lot more profitable than _curing_ a disease -- would the Epipen manufacturer ever develop
by empath-nirvana 3y ago
I think the more archetypal example is that _treating_ a disease is a lot more profitable than _curing_ a disease -- would the Epipen manufacturer ever develop and market a allergy _vaccine_ that cured an allergy with a one time shot?
- BurningFrog 3y agoThis is one reason it's essential to have a free enterprise system, where anyone can take on such problems.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y agoWhy would this happen when it's more profitable not to?
- BurningFrog 3y agoHow do you make profit not doing something? Right now I'm not doing billions of things, and don't see a cent is coming in!
- sitkack 3y agoOr a system that removes profit from the equation. From the article, I don't think any one bureaucratic system is immune from the effect. In the tech sector, we see many examples of the disruptor opening a temporary wedge to either get acquired by the dominant player or becoming the new hegemonist.
- BurningFrog 3y agoA system where it's not profitable to solve problems won't do much problem solving.
- owisd 3y agoThis is just taking the rational consumer model, forgetting it's just a model and treating it as a fact of life, and then inventing corollaries from it. Plenty of people find intrinsic value in solving problems without there needing to be a profit. See, e.g. Open Source Software, The Apollo Program, Academia, the BBC.
- fallingknife 3y agoAnd that only works for problems that are cheap to solve. Most aren't.
- rented_mule 3y agoYou are replying to a post that references exceptionally expensive efforts. The inflation adjusted cost of the Apollo Program was hundreds of billions of dollars[1]. By what measure is that cheap? Maybe I'm missing intended sarcasm? [1] https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo
- BurningFrog 3y agoThe Apollo Program, Academia, and the BBC all pay their workers, which makes it profitable for them to do the work. I get your point: These are not for profit enterprises and they still get important work done. I'm making a different point: People don't work for the benefit of others without being rewarded. Open Source Software is not a bad counter example. I think there are rewards in the joy of programming, making a name for yourself, and a few other things, but I'll concede that there is some nuance there.
- sitkack 3y agoSpoken like a true Ferengi.
- smallmancontrov 3y agoIf it's too free, nobody will do the research because they'll get scooped by copycats while everyone will claim to have a cure because they'll already have the customer's money by the time their fraud is discovered. Freedom is a good default and a good guiding principle, but it's a terrible absolute principle.
- forgetfreeman 3y agoFree enterprise is not a necessary precondition for research. You'll note how much of the last 50 years of technological advancements were direct or indirect results of government funded research programs.
- fabian2k 3y agoOne of the most successful drugs in recent times was one that actually cured a previously chronic and not curable disease. It was also a controversial one because it was very expensive. But Solvadi, which cured Hepatitis C was certainly a huge commercial success and shows that the whole idea that pharma companies are never incentivized to cure diseases instead of treating them is just wrong.
- mixmastamyk 3y agoNice example, but one exception doesn’t disprove a trend.
- fabian2k 3y agoWhat trend? In which cases specifically are companies avoiding to create a cure that would be possible and promising?
- kortilla 3y agoWhat trend? You need to show evidence of cures being suppressed many times to indicate any kind of trend.
- mixmastamyk 3y agoAny trend. I’m not making a claim—simply a logical statement. Those making claims need to show evidence.