Pharma companies don't actually care about fighting ANY diseases. That's not their mission. They care about what any corporation cares about: money, expansion, making foreign governments more malleable. Disease reduction is just a pretty side effect.
No, wait, I'm wrong. Pharma companies are bastions of decency and philanthropy, only in it for the good they do humanity.
A clear example that goes against this quote is the example of Merck and their development of a drug that was to treat river blindness in Africa. Merck knew that the individuals who needed the treatment, could not afford it, yet they still went ahead and developed the drug and shipped them out for free. It seems to me that even though "the poor can't afford to buy their products," Pharma companies also receive a lot of publicity for their "good" deeds which indirectly, positively effects their bottom line. Now analyzing the issue of whether or not the motives of developing these types of drugs should be considered, is a whole different can of worms that I'd love to discuss, but is not relevant to this topic.
Well science & technology always percolates down to the entire strata of society.
Ex: In my country are free vaccines for many diseases like Polio,Leprosy etc.I personally feel pharma sector is one which exists for benefit of one & all(however intangible it may be)
Comments | 4 Total
March 17, 2008 at 10:32am by Keith Snyder
Pharma companies don't actually care about fighting ANY diseases. That's not their mission. They care about what any corporation cares about: money, expansion, making foreign governments more malleable. Disease reduction is just a pretty side effect.
No, wait, I'm wrong. Pharma companies are bastions of decency and philanthropy, only in it for the good they do humanity.
March 17, 2008 at 6:17pm by John Yang
A clear example that goes against this quote is the example of Merck and their development of a drug that was to treat river blindness in Africa. Merck knew that the individuals who needed the treatment, could not afford it, yet they still went ahead and developed the drug and shipped them out for free. It seems to me that even though "the poor can't afford to buy their products," Pharma companies also receive a lot of publicity for their "good" deeds which indirectly, positively effects their bottom line. Now analyzing the issue of whether or not the motives of developing these types of drugs should be considered, is a whole different can of worms that I'd love to discuss, but is not relevant to this topic.
March 18, 2008 at 2:19am by Sridhar Oruganti
Well science & technology always percolates down to the entire strata of society.
Ex: In my country are free vaccines for many diseases like Polio,Leprosy etc.I personally feel pharma sector is one which exists for benefit of one & all(however intangible it may be)
March 18, 2008 at 11:07am by ravi adhikari
Or may be some mileage they want from so called CSR activities