>
> > You're right. The health care system in the U.S. is the worst when
> compared
> > to other industrialized nations. It's very unfortunate, and it's also
> > unfortunate that our government is run by extreme ....
>
> Maybe we can crunch here, and bash someplace else? Please??
>

I wasn't bashing -- just stating fact. As I stated in the closing of my previous post, I was ceasing the discussion about the poor state of the current U.S. government. If I didn't, I could go on and on -- even though it's relevent to issues like healthcare and science which is why most of crunch on these various projects -- to help advance, in one way or another, science and health.

Torrey Lauer

.......With United Devices, any discoveries
> will be sold for profit. In other words, if they do develop a cure for
> cancer, there are no guarantees that it will be made cheap enough for
> everybody to have access to it. The cure could be made for only the wealthy.
>

I would suggest you get your fact right before spouting off. Oxford Uni own the results of the cancer crunch, NOT UD.

Hmmm. this place is a Uni as well.........I wonder if they will keep the aliens to themselves.....

---

I used to crunch for WCG before I turned my computer over to BOINC 23.5/7.

I came over to BOINC mainly because I could easily pick and choose any number of (available) projects to run or not as I chose fit. Though I did have a nagging doubt over the not-for-profit status of WCG. But as someone said in an earlier post in this thread it's an imperfect world in which we live.

Below I've posted some links to a similar discussion (on WCG) to what some here have been having over the status of FightingAids@Home. I've done this because it might help some people decide if they want to join in on FightingAids@Home or not; as far as I'm concerned, if it's on BOINC I want to do it and if I change my mind I can, but also continue with the other projects easily.

Before everybody starts flaming me for cutting and pasting long messages:
Below each of the links I've pasted the most relevant article (in my opinion) in the thread, I did this because I believe you have to register before you can read the threads and so not everyone may have access to them.

=========================

http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=.....

Re: Is this a Non-Profit organization ?? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote
I found this quote in the Project Archives:

"In the first 72 hours, 100,000 results were returned. Overall, the project identified 44 strong treatment candidates, which were handed to the U.S. Department of Defense for further evaluation."

It may be a good cause or even non-profit, but I don´t think the U.S. Department of Defense will share their results with the world, and I doubt that a potential cure for AIDS developed with the current project will be shared with the world either. I think the commercial intrests of the western pharma-industry will remain more important than millions of dying Africans.

My client is turned off until further notice!!

=========================================

http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=199&offset=60

I would like to hear an official statemant, if this will happen in the future too.
You'll understand that I'm not really interested in crunching for the U.S. Department of Defense.... wink

Willi, Berlin

========================================

http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=199&offset=20

The RFP (Request for Proposal) document clearly states:

"World Community Grid is designed as a resource for research done with a philanthropic or humanitarian purpose and will only be available to projects conducted for public and not-for-profit purposes. It will serve as a useful tool for the completion of a certain stage of research, hastening the progress of projects into further phases of development. Results must be made available to the global research community by the sponsoring research organization and remain in the public domain. The results will also be available on World Community Grid’s website for volunteers and other visitors."

Also:

"World Community Grid, with technology and funding provided by the IBM Corporation, is making grid technology available to public and not-for-profit organizations to use in humanitarian research that might otherwise not be completed due to the high cost of the computer infrastructure required in the absence of a public grid."

And:

"Following the conclusion of the project, the research organization will make results produced by World Community Grid freely available to other research organizations within six months. The research organization also will provide results in a lay version for the World Community Grid community of volunteers and interested visitors to the web site."

I don't know how they can make more clear than that.

=========================================

Interesting discussion. I do know that IBM owns the copyright and trademark for both "World Community Grid" and "World Community Grid logo".

http://www.ibm.com/legal/copytrade.shtml

As for me, I plan to keep running it.

==================================

http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=338

Since IANAL either take this as my interpretation, so take the following as you want. Having been intimately involved since inception, knowing the purpose of the project and that it's run under IBM's Corporate Community Relations program, rest assurred that the intentions are honorable for lack of a better word.

I have read through these two statements a number of times and while IANAL, it seems to me that what these statements say is: 1. the technology of the grid will be used for humanitarian research; and 2. the onus on putting the research results into the public domain is on the organisation that is currently running their project on the grid.
Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation.

You are correct in this interpretation. The World Community Grid simply provides the vehicle for these projects to run. It is the organization's applications and data that are running on the grid and it is their responsibility to release the results. The Institute for Systems Biology is a not-for-profit organization. You can learn about them by clicking on the About Us link on their website.

If you read the RFP, you'll note some of the other requirements that have to be met in order to run any project on the Grid. They must be a not-for-profit organization and they must release their results to the public domain. A contract is drawn up between World Community Grid and the organization and it's spelled out in the contract, so if the contract conditions are not met (e.g. not releasing the results), there is a legal recourse.

How soon will the results be made available? That all depends on several factors including what kind of post processing needs to be done on the results gathered from the Grid. Each project will be unique in this regard.


Perhaps that seems a bit demanding, but it's a strange, patent-hungry, litiguous, greedy world we live in and the people willing to run this client are the kind that are in general morally opposed to that kind of thinking. Reassurance seems reasonable in that light.

Not at all. I understand where you're coming from. Be wary. Keep us honest. smile

Again, I encourage you to read the RFP for all the details.

- Rick Alther
World Community Grid Application Developer

---

Join TeamACC

Sometimes I think we are alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we are not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.

Hi Rick,

Thanks for posting this. In one sense I feel even more confused ;-) but at least it gives me an idea of the political wormholes that are around this kind of project. I guess I wish there were more straightforward answers and information, as I don't have time to do in-depth research about this stuff. Sigh...

This may be an imperfect world, but deception is something else again. I freaked when I saw that message about the results of a project being turned over to the Dept. of Defence!!! I guess they're entitled to it as much as the rest of the world, but... Like someone replied, I'm not particularly interested in helping the DoD do their thing.

I'm not quite sure how all this fits in with Fa@h, since they are a separate organisation (or at least it seems that way to this newbie's eyes). It disturbs me that Fa@h seems so unreachable to ask questions, and that is making me have second thoughts about helping them. But I'm not usually one to make decisions lightly, so I'll wait and see what else comes up about this.

Thanks again for your Reader's Digest version of WCG. ;-)


StarHugger

The project you are refering to was the smallpox drug discovery. This project was run on the grid.org system and sponsored by IBM.

They created it in reaction to the 9/11 tradegdy and fears that a biological weapon using smallpox may be a possibility.

In the begining a patriot grid was formed and people who wanted to run the drug discovery for the the Dod could join. In no way shape or form could anyone crunch smallpox WU's under ligand fit and not know were the results are going.

BTW, I crunched the smallpox workunits the whole way through the project.

I guess if some idiot does crack off a smallpox based weapon and the dod does have an antidote that may be of some use?

---

<img src='http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/1101sah.png'>

> They created it in reaction to the 9/11 tradegdy and fears that a biological
> weapon using smallpox may be a possibility.
> [...]
> I guess if some idiot does crack off a smallpox based weapon and the dod does
> have an antidote that may be of some use?


Point taken. Thanks for the clarification. Let's hope it never comes to that.


StarHugger

> Hi Rick,
>
> StarHugger
>
Hi StarHugger,

Just to clarify, I am not Rick. Rick posted the original message(s) on WCG, I just relayed them to this message board :)

In terms of the kind of projects that people want or are prepared to do in Distributed Computing, it comes down to what the individual feels is right for them and to what extent the individual feels that they can trust the sponsors/organisers of any given project.

I rely on message boards like these (and occasionally some research of my own) to find out about other projects (indeed other 'things' in general) for both pro and contra views upon which I make my decisions.

kinhull

---

Join TeamACC

Sometimes I think we are alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we are not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.

> >
> > > You're right. The health care system in the U.S. is the worst when
> > compared
> > > to other industrialized nations. It's very unfortunate, and it's
> also
> > > unfortunate that our government is run by extreme ....
> >
> > Maybe we can crunch here, and bash someplace else? Please??
> >
>
> I wasn't bashing -- just stating fact. As I stated in the closing of my
> previous post, I was ceasing the discussion about the poor state of the
> current U.S. government. If I didn't, I could go on and on -- even though
> it's relevent to issues like healthcare and science which is why most of
> crunch on these various projects -- to help advance, in one way or another,
> science and health.
>
> Torrey Lauer
>

I think you should rethink your statements regarding healthcare systems rankings. Life expectancy at birth in the US is lower than many other industrialized nations, but this is due mostly to higher infant mortality rates. On the other hand, life expectancy at age 65+ in the US is higher than that of any nation. Ranking healtcare systems is a very complex matter (especially since evaluation of both social policy and actual medical care are involved). Such gross overgeneralizations are never helpful for any discussion.

> >
> > Nexium...heartburn medication? You're comparing a Cure for Cancer to
> > heartburn medication?
>
> yes, Acid reflux does cause cancer mr clueless.
>
> > My
> > whole position is that I will not help a company develop a medication
> that
> > could be restricted to the wealthiest people / nations. What part of
> that do
> > you have a problem with?
> >
> so your saying that you rather there not be a cure, than a cure at a cost.
> The cure has to be found first, then quibble over proceeds.
>
> a starving man wouldn't refuse a job, just because he wasn't being placed at
> the top pay scale.
>
> The trouble with the clueless is they haven't gotten the clue that they are.
>
>
>

Ok, I've honestly had enough of your shitty attitude. What part of the following statement don't you understand?

"If someone develops a cure for cancer, what is to prevent them from INTENTIONALLY jacking up the price in order to make a hefty profit?"

You seem to twist and warp that to imply that I'm against a cure. That's not true. I'm all for a cure. I WANT a cure for cancer. But I don't want some profit-mongering CEOs to hoard it only for the wealthy, while letting the vast majority of poor people die. If the cost of a cure is high at first, then goes down as they refine their production techniques, then that's progress. But if they keep the price high just to make a hefty profit, then that's unacceptable.

I am sorry that you have cancer, and I do wish you the best of luck in beating it. My gripe is not against you, nor is it against other people who are suffering from cancer. My gripe is against anybody who develops a medicne that may be nothing more than a privilege for the rich and famous. Please try to understand that.

---

You will be assimilated...bunghole!

@Scott Brown:

Such gross overgeneralizations are never helpful for any discussion.

That in itself is an overgeneralization. You know what they say about overgeneralizing about overgeneralizations :-)

@Borgholio:

With respectful dissidence, I whole-heartedly think your view on capitalism is upside-down. Without the "profit" carrot waving in front of a CEO's eyes, there is no reason at all to follow a line of research and development. In fact, one problem that sufferers of diseases that affect lesser numbers of people (though with just as high a mortality rate as cancer and AIDS) have found is that since their community of sufferers is so small, research isn't being done to help their condition as no company can justify the expenditure with no ability to make a profit (as their just aren't enough people to buy the drug).

Wholely unhappily, that is not the case with cancer and AIDS. The target population is large. However, companies have an obligation to their shareholders to maximize their profit. In fact, any altriusm displayed by a company is just another way to maximize profit... A company that outlays $1million in charitable donations has to be assured that their profit would be at least $1million less without those charitable donations (due to people not buying their products because of their record). But I digress slightly.

Drugs are expensive because their are costly to research, develop, and produce. In the US the price is higher for private individuals that it would be without government intervention because of caps that Medicaid/Medicare will pay for given drugs. As the government has given the ultimatum "We will pay this and no more" the drug company either has to accept it or not sell that drug to the government. In the end that means that those sales have to be subsidized by private individuals. As well, to a lesser extent though still not small, this happens with insurance companies as well that bargain with the drug companies, which then gets passed on to individuals without insurance as well.

This is a bit of a ramble, which I apologize for, but public health policy is a rather broad canvas to start with :-)

Basically the take-away summary of my ramble is thus:
1) Companies must be able to make a profit (or think they can make a profit) in an activity in order to partake in that activity. Not only must they make a profit; but also, that profit must be larger than any other profit that they could have made using the same amount of resources
2) Pricing in a free market (with no outside intervention such as government) produces the price where supply and demand meet, thus providing the highest profit. This will always mean that some people cannot afford the drug. This is extremely unfortunate, however this leads me to point 3...
3) Without the ability to make a profit drug, drug companies close. If drug companies in general cannot make a profit, then no new drug companies enter the market. This leads to less and less new research being performed, and indeed, fewer cures being found.
4) The more profitible a company is, the more research it can perform, which leads to more profit. It is to the company's benefit to make certain that it's pipeline of drugs is as large as possible, which means that more and more new cures are being found.

Do not take this as an endorsement of UD, in fact I have only heard of the FA@H project in the last couple of days. However, I do think that in general drug research is best left to drug companies without governments mandating that they act in a certain manner. They'll behave in the best manner for them, which is to make the most cures and provide them to as many people as is feasible, thus making the largest profit. If by contributing distributed computing power to UD we provide them with a competitve advantage such that they can research a drug for cheaper that will more than likely do two things:
1) Increase their profit from the drug
2) Decrease the cost the amount that need to charge for that drug

Point two seems to directly address your concern. No, there is no gaurantee. However it is in the company's own best interests. And if it works for UD, there's a good possibility that other company's may catch on and start their own DC projects and decrease their R&D costs, thus decreasing their costs to the end-consumer as well...

A little free-market economics lesson today :-)

---

<img border="0" src="http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-1140.jpg" /><img border="0" src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=768" />

> @Scott Brown:
>

Such gross overgeneralizations are never helpful for any
> discussion.

>
> That in itself is an overgeneralization. You know what they say about
> overgeneralizing about overgeneralizations :-)
>
> @Borgholio:
>
> With respectful dissidence, I whole-heartedly think your view on capitalism is
> upside-down. Without the "profit" carrot waving in front of a CEO's eyes,
> there is no reason at all to follow a line of research and development. In
> fact, one problem that sufferers of diseases that affect lesser numbers of
> people (though with just as high a mortality rate as cancer and AIDS) have
> found is that since their community of sufferers is so small, research isn't
> being done to help their condition as no company can justify the expenditure
> with no ability to make a profit (as their just aren't enough people to buy
> the drug).
>
> Wholely unhappily, that is not the case with cancer and AIDS. The target
> population is large. However, companies have an obligation to their
> shareholders to maximize their profit. In fact, any altriusm displayed by a
> company is just another way to maximize profit... A company that outlays
> $1million in charitable donations has to be assured that their profit would be
> at least $1million less without those charitable donations (due to people not
> buying their products because of their record). But I digress slightly.
>
> Drugs are expensive because their are costly to research, develop, and
> produce. In the US the price is higher for private individuals that it would
> be without government intervention because of caps that Medicaid/Medicare will
> pay for given drugs. As the government has given the ultimatum "We will pay
> this and no more" the drug company either has to accept it or not sell that
> drug to the government. In the end that means that those sales have to be
> subsidized by private individuals. As well, to a lesser extent though still
> not small, this happens with insurance companies as well that bargain with the
> drug companies, which then gets passed on to individuals without insurance as
> well.
>
> This is a bit of a ramble, which I apologize for, but public health policy is
> a rather broad canvas to start with :-)
>
> Basically the take-away summary of my ramble is thus:
> 1) Companies must be able to make a profit (or think they can make a profit)
> in an activity in order to partake in that activity. Not only must they make
> a profit; but also, that profit must be larger than any other profit that they
> could have made using the same amount of resources
> 2) Pricing in a free market (with no outside intervention such as government)
> produces the price where supply and demand meet, thus providing the highest
> profit. This will always mean that some people cannot afford the drug. This
> is extremely unfortunate, however this leads me to point 3...
> 3) Without the ability to make a profit drug, drug companies close. If drug
> companies in general cannot make a profit, then no new drug companies enter
> the market. This leads to less and less new research being performed, and
> indeed, fewer cures being found.
> 4) The more profitible a company is, the more research it can perform, which
> leads to more profit. It is to the company's benefit to make certain that
> it's pipeline of drugs is as large as possible, which means that more and more
> new cures are being found.
>
> Do not take this as an endorsement of UD, in fact I have only heard of the
> FA@H project in the last couple of days. However, I do think that in general
> drug research is best left to drug companies without governments mandating
> that they act in a certain manner. They'll behave in the best manner for
> them, which is to make the most cures and provide them to as many people as is
> feasible, thus making the largest profit. If by contributing distributed
> computing power to UD we provide them with a competitve advantage such that
> they can research a drug for cheaper that will more than likely do two
> things:
> 1) Increase their profit from the drug
> 2) Decrease the cost the amount that need to charge for that drug
>
> Point two seems to directly address your concern. No, there is no gaurantee.
> However it is in the company's own best interests. And if it works for UD,
> there's a good possibility that other company's may catch on and start their
> own DC projects and decrease their R&D costs, thus decreasing their costs
> to the end-consumer as well...
>
> A little free-market economics lesson today :-)
>

Very informative. I find your post to be far more insightful and helpful than simply calling me "clueless". I do agree that the drug companies must make a profit, and indeed, they NEED to make a profit to fund further research. But personally, I believe that there's a difference between making a reasonable profit and getting filthy, stinking rich at the expense of someone's life. If the cure for cancer is so difficult to manufacture, that the company MUST charge an arm and a leg simply to afford the production costs...then so be it. But if it's as cheap as pencillin, then they have a moral obligation to sell it for the appropriate price.

Yes, I'm an idealist. So sue me. :-P

---

You will be assimilated...bunghole!

Oh, to be certain I'm an idealist as well to some extent. The thing about the free market though is that if a company is making an "arm-and-a-leg" in an industry, then more companies will entire the market providing more competition. This will cause the company to lower it's prices to fight the competition. It's really an endless feedback loop. If companies really are making an arm-and-a-leg, i.e. making alot of profit per resource spent, then more companies will enter the market thus driving down the profit per resource spent (though it would more than likely remain above the profit per resource that the companies that entered would have made otherwise, or they would have stayed put where they were). If the company wasn't making alot of profit per resource spent (at least comparibly to other markets) more companies won't enter and prices won't be driven down... but in that case prices were more than likely already at a "fair" price (though this price can still be unfortunately high in some cases, it's just because it does cost alot to make these drugs).

This would be the case if there were limited (or no) artificial barriers to enter the market. One of the barriers (though not artificial) to entering the drug market is the prohibitive cost of research and development that must be laid out before a drug can be sold, thus the start costs are very high. This can be offset (I would imagine) somewhat with DC projects. So by donating your DC power to these sorts of projects, you're actually lowering the barriers to enter the market, thus making the market much more competition-driven, and thus lowering the price of drugs. Again, all this in an ideal world where companies understand the sort of power they can harness with DC projects.

And indeed we have seen a number of upstart companies in the recent years in the drug industry, particularly in the biopharmaceutical area, where the startup costs are not quite as prohibitive.

---

<img border="0" src="http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-1140.jpg" /><img border="0" src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=768" />

> Oh, to be certain I'm an idealist as well to some extent. The thing about the
> free market though is that if a company is making an "arm-and-a-leg" in an
> industry, then more companies will entire the market providing more
> competition. This will cause the company to lower it's prices to fight the
> competition. It's really an endless feedback loop. If companies really are
> making an arm-and-a-leg, i.e. making alot of profit per resource spent, then
> more companies will enter the market thus driving down the profit per resource
> spent (though it would more than likely remain above the profit per resource
> that the companies that entered would have made otherwise, or they would have
> stayed put where they were). If the company wasn't making alot of profit per
> resource spent (at least comparibly to other markets) more companies won't
> enter and prices won't be driven down... but in that case prices were more
> than likely already at a "fair" price (though this price can still be
> unfortunately high in some cases, it's just because it does cost alot to make
> these drugs).
>
> This would be the case if there were limited (or no) artificial barriers to
> enter the market. One of the barriers (though not artificial) to entering the
> drug market is the prohibitive cost of research and development that must be
> laid out before a drug can be sold, thus the start costs are very high. This
> can be offset (I would imagine) somewhat with DC projects. So by donating
> your DC power to these sorts of projects, you're actually lowering the
> barriers to enter the market, thus making the market much more
> competition-driven, and thus lowering the price of drugs. Again, all this in
> an ideal world where companies understand the sort of power they can harness
> with DC projects.
>
> And indeed we have seen a number of upstart companies in the recent years in
> the drug industry, particularly in the biopharmaceutical area, where the
> startup costs are not quite as prohibitive.
>

Again, you raise some good points. But developing a cure for cancer is more than just expensive, it's a pain in the ass. What's to stop a private company from holding all the secrets to the development of the cure? How long would it take for a second company to produce the same medicine?

---

You will be assimilated...bunghole!

I often worry about the seeming conflict of interest between profit motive and the altruism of an "ideal" medical system. It was a fictional book that got me thinking about it.

The scenario was an outbreak of a mutated strain of the Plague. A drug company's research develops a somewhat effective but expensive antibiotic, and a more effective but obscure derivative of tetracycline. The company makes the decision to suppress the tetracycline cure because there's no way to put an enforceable patent on it and recover the costs of the research, so many die from a less effective regimen.

This scenario seems frighteningly plausible, and is why I wonder if leaving medical biochemical advances almost exclusively in the hands of people with an ulterior motive is in the long term best interests of everyone. This and other scenarios illustrate that it may be in a drug company's best interests NOT to offer cures. I wonder if in a wierd way the "holistic hippies" are right: our system is biased towards long-term expensive solutions to problems that may have a simpler but less profitable fix.

I don't know the answer to that question to tell you the truth. The only way I can address it is that if a company does hold on to that solution and charges exhorbitant amounts for it, then they are doing themselves and their shareholders (who are the only people that a company has to answer to!) a disservice. A company's only task is to maximize profit, even if that profit is negative, which can happen through poor planning or a whole host of other reasons. To do that they need to get the cure in the most people's hands at the highest price. Since those two goals are at odds, they have to effectively counter-balance them.

I must run to be a panelist for a career panel at the local university, so we'll have to pick this up another time, or perhaps someone else can pick up the torch in my stead.

---

<img border="0" src="http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-1140.jpg" /><img border="0" src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=768" />

One last post, in response to Muraski, and then I really must be off!

In your example, in the end the company is compelled to make the most profit possible. If they had already developed the tetracyclin alternative (which would be the only way to actually know if it works as drugs always have, and more than likely will remain for quite some time, extremely difficult to determine their exact effects ahead of time) then at that point the R&D for that option is a sunk cost. By not offering that option, even if it is cheaper, they are decreasing the amount of money that they make. -1000 is still a larger profit than -2000... It's better to lose $1000 than it is to lose $2000, which is effectively what they would do if they didn't offer the alternative at all.

---

<img border="0" src="http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-1140.jpg" /><img border="0" src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=768" />

> In your example, in the end the company is compelled to make the most profit
> possible. If they had already developed the tetracyclin alternative (which
> would be the only way to actually know if it works as drugs always have, and
> more than likely will remain for quite some time, extremely difficult to
> determine their exact effects ahead of time) then at that point the R&D
> for that option is a sunk cost. By not offering that option, even if it is
> cheaper, they are decreasing the amount of money that they make. -1000 is
> still a larger profit than -2000... It's better to lose $1000 than it is to
> lose $2000, which is effectively what they would do if they didn't offer the
> alternative at all.

Too simplistic a model.

The tetracycline cure was not known to the world. The research data was kept in the lab and didn't even make it to trials. In the story the development of the two drugs were simultaneous in response to the new bacterial strain, but it would be the same if the tetracycline derivative was developed first.

If they know it won't be profitable, then a sound business strategy says why risk clinical trials, which themselves are expensive and have the added bonus of opening companies up to litigation if they're mishandled, then having to ramp up large scale manufacturing? Better to writeoff $2M in pure research than be down $10M+ in R&D, selling doses at $2 a pop with a 10% margin, and fighting a dozen other companies for market share.

Accept the current loss, keep the data under wraps, wait until something more profitable and patentable is developed, and let your competitors waste their R&D money duplicating the research.

The very worst thing that could happen to the company at that point is corporate espionage: the data gets stolen and the drug successfully passes clinical trials, negating the possibility of a more expensive solution. Since it isn't patentable, the first company still saved money and can market the drug at the exact same profit as they would otherwise, and possibly still sue the offending competitor if the espionage could be proven.

So I'll stick by my original worry, that profit motive may be suppressing the best cures.

There's two pitfalls in your theory:

1) You assume that the cheaper alternative would be less profitable yet be a better cure than the more expensive alternative. However, if the cheaper alternative is a much better cure than the more expensive alternative it would be prescribed much more often as it would work in more cases, thus netting the company more profit.
2) The other assumption is that the company somehow knows that there is a more profitable drug on the way. This simple can't be known. They can wish and hope that there is a more profitable drug, as they should, but if they knew that there was a more profitable drug then they more than likely would not have developed the less profitable drug. However, I fall back on my premise that, in the long run, the better cures end up being the more profitable drugs. The "better" a cure is, meaning it either produces more desirable outcomes (i.e. complete healing with no major side effects) or it works for more people, the more often it'll be proscribed and thus the more it will be sold, netting the company more profit.

So yes, my model is simplistic to some degree. After all, this is a "cruncher" board for discussing our DC projects not an economics board. However, your model is equally simplistic if not moreso.

---

<img border="0" src="http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-1140.jpg" /><img border="0" src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=768" />

> 1) You assume that the cheaper alternative would be less profitable yet be a
> better cure than the more expensive alternative.

Well, the cheap effective cure vs the expensive less effective cure WAS THE POINT of the exercise, to show how conflict of interest can arise in the pharmaceutical industry. Considering as an example that aspirin regimen has been found at least as effective as some more expensive drugs in heart and blood problems, this scenario isn't so outlandish to consider.

> However, if the cheaper
> alternative is a much better cure than the more expensive alternative it would
> be prescribed much more often as it would work in more cases, thus netting the
> company more profit.

This is what in economics is called an elasticity of demand, that a drug is prescribed more often because it is cheaper. This is an open market model where all alternative products are available, and is simply not the case here. The providing company, by suppressing the cheap drug, makes the market rigid. Doctors can't prescribe what simply isn't available. And over N cases, if X profit is greater than Y profit, then the company will pick X*N for their solution, regardless of Z extra deaths.

> 2) The other assumption is that the company somehow knows that there is a
> more profitable drug on the way. This simple can't be known. They can wish


It isn't unreasonable to project that the company in question knows more than one vector to pursue in attacking the disease. Drugs can weaken cell walls, interfere with key enzymes, stimulate an immune response, etc.

In any case, companies drop research and unpromising product lines all the time, many before they're ever marketed. You fail to understand that these companies are shooting for a LEVEL of performance in investment return. Yes, they actually WOULD drop a product line because it isn't the best performance for the development money they had yet to spend when they realized the product's lousy profit potential, even if no alternative existed at all.

> So yes, my model is simplistic to some degree. After all, this is a
> "cruncher" board for discussing our DC projects not an economics board.
> However, your model is equally simplistic if not moreso.

You simply assume it will ALWAYS be profitable to bring a drug to market, even if it's just cutting an initial loss, but the real world doesn't work that way. Cheap cures and 10% profit margins don't cover potential liability, profit-taking, and future R&D investments. Economic investment philosophy would override altruistic medical practice with these people, and the sick would suffer for it.

> Oh, to be certain I'm an idealist as well to some extent. The thing about the
> free market though is that if a company is making an "arm-and-a-leg" in an
> industry, then more companies will entire the market providing more
> competition. This will cause the company to lower it's prices to fight the
> competition. It's really an endless feedback loop.

A very basic problem with this logic is that it is capitalism applied in a vaccuum. You have ignored patent law that would give a particular company exclusive production rights for up to 17 years (I believe that is the current limit...someone correct me if it has changed...). You also ignore the fact that many CEO's, etc. and their relatives also serve in the revolving door that is politics and government. It is quite possible (and has occurred numerous times) that a company can monopolize a particular market/product and maintain artificially inflated prices.