Yeah but should we assess the type and level of good that they have done and at what price? For example, have they delivered "good", equivalent to the huge profits and the power they have? Have the prioritized curing diseases even if this will deliver less profits? I'm sure you are aware of the bulbs example i.e. we have already discovered the bulb that never gets burnt but commercializing this would not make economic sense for the relevant corporates. Similarly, would pharma companies ever release the cure for cancer/ AIDS even if this means that they will loose huge amount of profits..? And the last point.. how are they developing and testing their new drugs (i.e. the price paid)?
Capable of doing a lot of good? Yes. Has done a lot of good? No, not compared to the amount of good they could have been doing if they weren't only focused on making money by any means necessary.
@votesaad agreed. Not to mention that big pharma has also done a ton of damage. I guarantee that if big pharma did not exist in the way it does now, we would already have a cure for most kinds of cancer.
@jeffery95014 can you please give some examples of the good they have done outside of their core function? They routinely rip off their market to make money and raise the salaries of their executives
@lynnihendrix Almost eliminating Dracunculiasis as a disease for one, getting it down from 400000 cases to 22 cases. There's 9 more targeted diseases as well. And they did this for free.
Yes. Vaccines in particular have saved lives. But these companies still engage in sahdy practices and need to be held to account when they do.It's called "nuance." Despite what the 2004 Election may hvae tuahgt you, that is NOT a dirty word.
Sure. When you do a whole lot of stuff, period, you're bound to do a lot of good stuff. For instance, Hitler turned around Germany's struggling post-WWI economy.
@citizenthom hahaha this is perfect