Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The End of Anitbiotics and the Failure of Capitalism

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) writes | 1 year,1 day

Biotech 14

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sorry (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45230821)

How is an economic system responsible for biochemical effects?

Re:Sorry (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | 1 year,1 hour | (#45235903)

Read the interview? Profit seeking without planning or ethics, tied to stock performance drove the unexamined over-use of medicines.

Re:Sorry (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45239619)

Oh, right: profit is as evil as private property.

Re:Sorry (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#45240151)

Profit, like all else, requires a context. Please, read the whole interview.

Re:Sorry (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45240617)

Do you think that it’s fair to say that we’ve had a failure of capitalism here?
The fact that these are for-profit companies that we asked to develop drugs for us, then it should come as no surprise to us if the drugs that we’re asking to develop don’t make money that they’re not going to invest a large amount in making new ones.

Somebody I know intimately does pharmaceutical project management for a living.
The irony here is that among the major bad guys in all of this are patent laws, and the implementation of the international standards on running studies. A recommended blog on the topic is pharmalot [pharmalive.com] .

Re:Sorry (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#45245617)

Patent laws and "standards", that are a result of industry pressure, designed to eliminate competition. A government can only acquiesce to them if it wants to stay in business. Otherwise an opposition is created, funded, and put in place through rigged elections or military coup to do their dirty business. As always power is derived from wealth, and wealth comes from the power to steal.

Re:Sorry (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45245853)

As always power is derived from wealth, and wealth comes from the power to steal.

Because nothing says 'theft' like a successful restaurant. By which I mean to say that your point has occasional merit.

Re:Sorry (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#45245973)

Look, if I can be successful by adopting orphan babies from the 3rd world, then selling their kidneys at a profit? Hey!

Let's just pump the market with anti-biotics, in disregard for the ethics, morals and science. The horrifying, rotting deaths are at least 30 years in the future, and the money is here now! Hooray for the invisible hand!

Re:Sorry (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45246983)

By you logic, Weyerhaeuser [weyerhaeuser.com] should've long since stripped Oregon bare.
But they haven't. Why not? Among the reasons are that the anti-capitalist slur that business people "Let's just pump the market. . .in disregard for the ethics, morals and science" is exactly that.
Get this: the same people that show up to work, follow the laws, pay the bills, and deliver a product ALSO understand that you can't just blow away the market and expect any profitability down the road.
Same's true for pharma. It takes SO long, the sunk costs are SO huge, the penalties for screwing up are SO severe, that your caricature of fly-by-night quacks trying to fleece the marks and fade into the night is the silly part.
Where you do have some merit, by the way, is in generic drugs [doctoroz.com] , which are neither the same formulations nor subject to the same tests as the originals.
But that dichotomy is a result of the perverse twerking of the market by our lovely government (no doubt on bad generic drugs).

Re:Sorry (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#45250365)

There's a reason Weyerhaeuser hasn't stripped Oregon bare. Of all their corporate peers, they've paid some of the highest environmental penalties. Their management is responsible enough to know that someone is watching.

And they try to keep their clear-cutting to native American lands, away from scrutiny.

Re:Sorry (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45250497)

"Of all their corporate peers, they've paid some of the highest environmental penalties."

Do you mean they've had to endure some of the most asinine, shrill, granola-head idiocy of anyone on they planet? If that's what you meant, you're quite correct.

Re:Sorry (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#45250823)

Either way, they haven't clear-cut the forests, unlike their less-closely scrutinized peers in certain parts of the world.

Since a corporation cannot have morals, there are only a few mechanisms by which moral accountability can be achieved. Government, unions and the "free market". Since none of us are actually customers of this particular corporation, there are no free market mechanisms to achieve moral accountability.

You want moral accountability, don't you? Isn't that like bullet point #1 on the reactionary top ten?

If you can explain how, in a world of stock buybacks and arbitration clauses and options markets and corporate sovereignty, you can achieve moral accountability for corporations without government or unions, I am eager to hear. When Burns Industries would pour poisonous chemicals in the town's water supply, the people of the town could gather on Old Mr Burns' front lawn and confront him. Today, with corporate consolidation, there is no "Mr Weyerhaeuser" and if he did exist, he sure ain't living nowheres in town.

Re:Sorry (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year ago | (#45252065)

Strangely, I agree with you. Corporations cannot have morals. Morals are an individual, spiritual, subjective thing.
Corporations are composed of people, and people mostly adhere to ethical norms.

you can achieve moral accountability for corporations without government or unions, I am eager to hear

Media, especially social. When corporations cannot be abusive without market feedback, that is, they make more money through ethical behavior, we can improve.
You seem to have missed the point that a union is a corporation whose product is not-labor. Such feedback is occasionally useful for system stability. However, among the over-arching unfunny jokes of our modern era has been the unions demanding ObamaCare, then whining when "the friendly government Cthulhu" turns out to have the munchies.
And you're avoiding my point that corporations, have to treat the market like farmers do the land, and avoid soil depletion in the long run [weyerhaeuser.com] . In defense of your point, the agitation of the granola-heads has impacted Weyerhaeuser's behavior positively, no doubt.

Just in time... (1)

flyneye (84093) | 1 year,7 hours | (#45232455)

End of anti-biotics? Well, who didn't see that coming. It will only boost marijuana products. Colorado needs the capital after those fires screwed so much up.
Colorado, proof of the wonders of capitalism done RIGHT!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?