Alienturnedhuman wrote:
Finding a cure to cancer is a misleading statement anyway. It implies cancer is like catching an infection that you can take antibodies for and it will be killed. While it may be possible to create something that does attack cancer, it's not really the same sort of thing.
Really, the "cure for cancer" is a marketing slogan more than anything. In terms of medical research, it's really divided between treatment and preventative methods / early detection.
This really is one of those things that is difficult to really discuss in a short form discussion. Ultimately, it is generating money for the illness, but with 80%
of the money seemingly going elsewhere, that's a waste level that would never be tolerated in any public service.
In terms of cost efficiency, it's clearly best to give the money directly to the research teams. But if you did that, would you be able to raise even 10% of the money that would be generated this way? It's a highly debatable issue. Clearly, if people's pockets are being lined on this, that makes them terrible people. But it's like someone saying "give me a million dollars and I'll save a child from a sinking ship and buy myself 9 Ferraris" - they are putting you in a position where opposing it focuses on the child drowning, they tie your inaction to that occurring - and while you may be able to pay someone else to go out and save the child without funding the 9 Ferraris, you have no idea whether that would be successful or not.
To be clear, I don't know that the 80% is lining the pockets of these people, although no doubt they will be making something out of it.
However, all charitable work doing by profit making companies will have some cynicism to it as you break it down - even if it's just to reduce their tax burden and gain some positive PR.
I don't disagree with your point, but I don't think its quite as cynical as many believe.
Charities exist to generate money, which they then pass on to something. Companies exist to generate money. They are both after the same goal, so it makes sense they work in what is essentially the right way.
They need someone at the top who can really drive the strategy, create a vision, and get the right people in place to generate that revenue (I'm being simplistic, I know). Charities will look at their employees as a return on investment to some degree. Do you want the best talent out there finding you money, and generating more revenue? Well its going to cost more money to hire and retain them.
I have no doubt there are some really dirty organisations out there, but many of them with these horrible %s are just different charities operating with different 'profit margins' looking to generate as much revenue as they can to pass on to the cause - they just need to pay a bunch of people in order to do this.
moby wrote:
I think most pharma companies dont want to find a 'cure', thats a customer lost. They want a 'controler' so they are locked in for life.
I disagree with this entirely. Sometimes we see the horrible, psychopathic side of business but they're usually kept in check. Plus even looking at it coldly - the first person to get to that magic cure? Well, that's one way to give your company a use competitive edge.
The real issue is cancer is not a one size fits all fix. It's not a foreign object. It's not something which has wormed its way in. Its part of the fabric of us, and comes with a huge variety...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
