4 ms·

Actually, nowhere near "everyone working for Big Pharma" needs to be a sociopath for the industry to act sociopathically. In fact, it can happen with as few as

by qq66 12y ago

Actually, nowhere near "everyone working for Big Pharma" needs to be a sociopath for the industry to act sociopathically. In fact, it can happen with as few as one or even zero sociopaths, since the organization has properties of its own independent of the constituent humans. My favorite exploration of this idea is the TV show "The Wire."

cbd1984 12y ago
It presupposes that there are no defectors, in a game-theoretic sense: Every company that could develop a cure or cheap therapy doesn't, even though that would be a very lucrative product: A cheap lithium pill would sell in huge volume and be profitable even with a minimal markup.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > A cheap lithium pill would sell in huge volume and be profitable even with a minimal markup. The problem should be obvious -- lithium is an element that cannot be protected by trademark, patent or copyright. Anyone marketing it is sure to be undercut as soon as the product begins to win public acceptance and show a profit. The other issue is toxicity. Without professional advice, people might think that, because a small amount confers benefit, therefore more is better. But, not unlike vitamin A, lithium becomes toxic above relatively low levels. For that reason it's not likely to be sold over the counter.
  - ConceptJunkie 12y ago
    By your logic no one could make money selling Vitamin C. Also, the article talked about the benefits of consuming lithium at a tiny fraction of the therapeutic level. There are plenty of legal, common supplements that are similarly toxic if consumed in those amounts.
    - gwern 12y ago
      > By your logic no one could make money selling Vitamin C. One can make money selling vitamin C - after someone (such as the government) has spent a lot of money running experiments and publishing the results, yielding a public good of the knowledge 'vitamin C may be good for some things'. One will have a much more difficult time making money by investing in research establishing 'substance X is good for something', publishing that information, and then selling substance X - when substance X is cheap, widely available, and one's competitors will instantly match and undercut any of your offerings of X.
  - refurb 12y ago
    Just because something is an element doesn't mean it can't be patented as a medicine. There are use patents and formulation patents that can protect a drug that contains a chemical that itself can't be patented.

by qq66 12y ago

cbd1984 12y ago

It presupposes that there are no defectors, in a game-theoretic sense: Every company that could develop a cure or cheap therapy doesn't, even though that would be a very lucrative product: A cheap lithium pill would sell in huge volume and be profitable even with a minimal markup.

lutusp 12y ago
> A cheap lithium pill would sell in huge volume and be profitable even with a minimal markup. The problem should be obvious -- lithium is an element that cannot be protected by trademark, patent or copyright. Anyone marketing it is sure to be undercut as soon as the product begins to win public acceptance and show a profit. The other issue is toxicity. Without professional advice, people might think that, because a small amount confers benefit, therefore more is better. But, not unlike vitamin A, lithium becomes toxic above relatively low levels. For that reason it's not likely to be sold over the counter.
- ConceptJunkie 12y ago
  By your logic no one could make money selling Vitamin C. Also, the article talked about the benefits of consuming lithium at a tiny fraction of the therapeutic level. There are plenty of legal, common supplements that are similarly toxic if consumed in those amounts.
  - gwern 12y ago
    > By your logic no one could make money selling Vitamin C. One can make money selling vitamin C - after someone (such as the government) has spent a lot of money running experiments and publishing the results, yielding a public good of the knowledge 'vitamin C may be good for some things'. One will have a much more difficult time making money by investing in research establishing 'substance X is good for something', publishing that information, and then selling substance X - when substance X is cheap, widely available, and one's competitors will instantly match and undercut any of your offerings of X.
- refurb 12y ago
  Just because something is an element doesn't mean it can't be patented as a medicine. There are use patents and formulation patents that can protect a drug that contains a chemical that itself can't be patented.