# Science and the free market **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 22, 2002, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392 "2002-12-22T16:03:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2002, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/61 "2002-12-26T15:22:41Z")
I think what hacks most people off is that if you discover a life saving drug, you can pretty much name your price. The costs of R&D will be neglible compared to the profit available. It’s essentially price gouging. It’s much like the person that sells storm supplies at incredibly inflated prices when a hurricane comes barreling down. Sure you could look at it as supply and demand, but I bet most people see it as unethical. As to what to do about it, I’m not sure as yet. I just know I don’t like it as it is. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2002, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/62 "2002-12-26T15:37:52Z")
OOC, how is charging what the market will bear unethical? ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2002, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/63 "2002-12-26T15:53:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > OOC, how is charging what the market will bear unethical? Your deciding who lives and dies by the prices you charge. Do you think ethics aren’t involved in that decision? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2002, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/64 "2002-12-26T16:55:14Z")
> [@](#): > > I think what hacks most people off is that if you discover a life saving drug, you can pretty much name your price. The costs of R&D will be neglible compared to the profit available. It’s essentially price gouging. It’s much like the person that sells storm supplies at incredibly inflated prices when a hurricane comes barreling down. Sure you could look at it as supply and demand, but I bet most people see it as unethical. > > As to what to do about it, I’m not sure as yet. I just know I don’t like it as it is. First of all, I’d like a cite that the costs of R&D will be ‘negligible’ compared to your profits. Life-saving drugs are often developed after literally billions of dollars are spent on them. Look at the money that has been invested in cancer research. Also, it would be nice if you would remember that these companies spend millions of dollars on R&D for drugs that never make it to market. So the ones that are successful have to make this money back, plus a reasonable profit. And finally, if a company can charge a lot of money for a drug they invented, the only reason is because that drug has great value for the people willing to buy it. It has made their lives immeasurably better. Why can’t you see that side of the coin? Why can’t you see the good side of people and companies that risk their own hard-earned money to research and develop drugs that make people’s lives better, rather than, say, buying yachts or yacht factories? But all you see is money, profit, and people who need drugs. Yours is a very simplistic view of the world. It’s all about class struggle, rich against poor, big companies against the little guy. You might try seeing the other side of the equation. ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2002, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/65 "2002-12-26T17:32:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > First of all, I’d like a cite that the costs of R&D will be ‘negligible’ compared to your profits. Life-saving drugs are often developed after literally billions of dollars are spent on them. Look at the money that has been invested in cancer research. My contention was that market value was determining price not R&D costs. The market value of a life saving drug (whose benefits are not duplicated by a competitor)is however much money the patient has to pay. Do you really need a cite for that? The only other option that I see is that there might already be some consumer protections in place. Or perhaps you think that pharmacuetical companies are self regulating and once they’ve made a decent profit they won’t raise the price any further. > [@](#): > > But all you see is money, profit, and people who need drugs. Yours is a very simplistic view of the world. It’s all about class struggle, rich against poor, big companies against the little guy. You might try seeing the other side of the equation Please refrain from making sweeping generalizations about views I haven’t expressed explicitly. You seem really prone to ad hominems instead concentrating on issues. Stick to the matter at hand. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2002, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/66 "2002-12-26T23:20:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > **Jshore:** But you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I agree that some of the problems with patents exist as you describe. No question. But the proper solution is to fix the patent system, not scrap it. And the answer damned sure isn’t federal caps on drug prices or the reduction or elimination of patents. That would be a disaster for society. I agree with you on pretty much everything here except the word “reduction” (i.e., I think a reform of the patent system might result in fewer patents by raising standards). And, I would have to see more evidence on both sides before I dismissed out-of-hand the idea of caps on drug prices. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2002, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/67 "2002-12-26T23:44:35Z")
Actually, I meant ‘reduction in the protection or lifespan of patents’. I would agree that there should probably be an overall reduction in the number of patents issued. My company submits patents willy-nilly over the silliest things, simply because they can, and because every other company does as well. This is the fault of the patent office. It needs an overhaul to bring it into the 21st century. Especially in the area of information sciences, where some truly ridiculous patents have been granted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392.md?page=3)