A small, non-toxic molecule may soon be available as an inexpensive treatment for many forms of cancer, including lung, breast and brain tumours, say University of Alberta researchers ... In findings that "astounded" the researchers, the molecule known as DCA was shown to shrink lung, breast and brain tumours in both animal and human tissue experiments.
Wow! Great news, right? Well, maybe not:
But there's a catch: the drug isn't patented, and pharmaceutical companies may not be interested in funding further research if the treatment won't make them a profit.
I was watching CTV last night and this story left me speechless. One commentator noted that she was aware of other times that good drugs were left undeveloped since there was no profit in it.
If ever there was a story that highlighted the hollowness of a purely for-profit, market-based viewpoint on the world, then this is it. This philosophy gained traction in recent decades with Republicans in the US and big-C Conservatives in Canada. It is no coincidence that individuals who successfully rose to executive positions in an industry that was developed in the same time-frame as this economic model would see the bottom line as the only thing to consider when they write their strategic plans.
There is a parallel here to what happened with the Conservatives on climate change. Their economic philosphy is like a set of blinders that prevents them from seeing the bigger picture, and leaves them scrambling when changes in the national mood catch them off guard. Without the blinders, it was fairly easy to see that we were heading towards a political climate that would demand real action on the environment. But they kept trying to protect their wealthier supporters, and they got hammered on the issue. There is good reason why such politicians are often called reactionary. Canadians want leadership, not finger-in-the-wind political calculations on such issues.
I think Canadians instinctively understand that the profit motive is the something that they dislike about Conservative values. In fact, I think it is quite likely that it will prevent the Conservatives from ever again positioning themselves to form a majority government. When a conservative talking point such as "let the market decide" is applied to social constructs such as public health care, things start going wrong. Again, this story illustrates that in spades.
As it happens, there is nothing inherently wrong with fiscal conservativism. As readers know, the Green Party has a socially progressive, fiscally conservative platform that tries to reconcile the idea of fiscal responsibility with the idea that the purpose of government is to foster the public good. This idea also has parallels in the business world. For example, doctors and lawyers are highly-trained and highly-paid professionals, but these professions also have long-standing traditions of doing volunteer or pro bono work. In large part, I think this is because these professions developed before flawed market-based economic theories started taking precedence over compassion and common sense.
At some point, large corporations need to start paying more than lip service to the progressive concept of giving back to their communities. It is wrong to funnel the lion's share of their profits to top executives. Ultimately, neither they nor the public good is served when an inexpensive cancer drug is left undeveloped while individuals in the community watch their friends and their family dying of cancer.
Develop this drug, and fast, please.
UPDATE: Visit Scott's DiaTribes for more commentary on this blog posting.
Recommend