Subject:
|
Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 May 2000 18:02:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
862 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> > What criteria do you use to do cost benefit analysis of medical research?
> > Until the research is complete, the costs cannot be analyzed. Neither can • the
> > beneficiality of the research.
>
> That was my question too, but I bet there are economic models that can be
> applied based on past examples and our knowledge of systems and epidemiology.
For research of course one can't use pure cost/benefit analysis. There has to
be risk and potential analysis also. Also, some amount of basic research must
continue, so that you don't purely allocate money by ranking all the possible
research areas, and then go from the top down allocating money until you run
out.
Of course in the general sense, since the people who are contributing some of
the money to be used for research aren't perfectly knowledgeable, there will be
a certain amount of money designated for things based on the perceived need for
a solution (for example, if someone close to Bill Gates was struck by some rare
and unusual disease, one would might find that research of that disease was
well funded just because the person Bill is close to is important to him, and
Bill has a lot of money to throw around).
It seems to me that in a totally free market, the research dollars would get
pretty well spent where there was the best return. This won't perfectly satisfy
everyone (or even most people), but that will be because some problems which
affect a lot of people don't provide enough potential for return to justify a
large expenditure of money.
If the world were to suddenly turn into a free market tomorrow, I think both
AIDS and Cancer would receive plenty of funding. Many of the problems
afflicting third world countries would also probably receive better funding
that they are right now (if nothing else, simply because the people in those
countries would have more control over their share of the world resources, and
at least as important, because it would be more worth companies in the US etc.
investing in those countries since their investments would be much safer). I
also suspect a lot of new drugs would end up being able to be much cheaper
(simply because the free market would govern the research control instead of
the FDA, so drugs for diseases with very poor surviveability would require far
less control over human trials, simply because the cost benefit analysis will
result in less quality control [if you're going to die in 1-2 years, who cares
if a drug might accidentally kill you earlier, it probably can't make your
situation worse <harder to bear>, and so long as there is some possibility of
improvement, why not try it]).
Frank
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) No, the research dollars will be spent where there is the *perception* of best return. Further, it may be simply be the perception of the best short-term return. And just to add to that, it may involve more resources than a single company can (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why is AIDS such a big deal?
|
| (...) When I first read this I just knew (incorrectly) that it would end with something like "infringing on my trade dress." Oh well. Hey Lar, do you prefer Lar or Larry? (...) Wow. I'd heard that about NYC inhabitants, but...wow. European friends (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
228 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
