Examine the often contradictory forces of altruism and profit as they influenced science research related to HeLa. What are the risks and benefits of allowing profit to guide research?
If altruism and profit are what drive scientific studies, then if a cure is found then it might be masked to continue selling expensive drugs that only help the symptoms of the disease rather than a one-time fix. These forces also drive people to stomp on the rights of others. People have the right of "knowing if and how their tissues are being used in research" (Skloot, 2010 pg 231). Henrietta didn't know her cells were being used for scientific research, and they ended up being all over the world. Labs across the world had her DNA, and no credit was given to her for many years. Many people did not know the name "Henrietta Lacks" when her cells contributed to many cancer research breakthroughs. Profit is not bad in scientific research. Money can influence researchers to find cures quickly and effectively. Profit could also influence further research of so scientist are not out of the job once something is solved. There is always something for scientists to solve. Profit for research is not bad but it could be depending on the morals of some people. As stated before, people may hide the cure to a disease for profitable drugs and also to hold a monopoly on the cure. This makes it so that people who can not afford the cure will suffer the repercussions. These people do not deserve to be denied a healthy body but because a company owns the right to the cure, they will.
I agree with Luis, profit is conditionally a “good” thing in scientific research. For example, the first lab to produce the vaccine for an epidemic will receive the pay out, so laboratories will compete to be first. However, people diseases that can be treated will suffer the most at the hands of large pharmaceutical companies which will go to great lengths to profit off their medication, even when it is defective. In 1984 Bayer discovered their injectible Hemophilia medication was contaminated with the AIDS virus. Bayer pulled the medication off the market in the US, but continued making it and selling it overseas because it was cheaper to produce than the newer clotting medication for hemophilia. The total number of hemophiliacs who contracted AIDS from the medication are incalculable. When companies are motivated by money their focus is profit rather than people.
Bogdanich, W., & Koli, E. (2003, May 21). 2 Paths of Bayer Drug in 80's: Riskier One Steered Overseas. Retrieved January 19, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/business/2-paths-of-bayer-drug-in-80-s-riskier-one-steered-overseas.html
To add to Luis’ post, money can very much force you into a direction that may go against one’s morals. This type of act, in a way, when going against one’s morals and making sacrifices for the other side to succeed, which then will cause success to the original person, is called reciprocal altruism. Adrian Raine writes, in The Anatomy of Violence, about reciprocal altruism: “But surely we humans are different from animals...Reciprocal altruism has indeed evolved because in the long run it benefits the performer” (Raine 17). The idea of profit overcomes the idea of good morals and altruism. Think of a lawyer; They’re job is forwarded by money and profit; There is no such thing as a law firm run by morals. (Word Count: 101)
If altruism and profit are what drive scientific studies, then if a cure is found then it might be masked to continue selling expensive drugs that only help the symptoms of the disease rather than a one-time fix. These forces also drive people to stomp on the rights of others. People have the right of "knowing if and how their tissues are being used in research" (Skloot, 2010 pg 231). Henrietta didn't know her cells were being used for scientific research, and they ended up being all over the world. Labs across the world had her DNA, and no credit was given to her for many years. Many people did not know the name "Henrietta Lacks" when her cells contributed to many cancer research breakthroughs. Profit is not bad in scientific research. Money can influence researchers to find cures quickly and effectively. Profit could also influence further research of so scientist are not out of the job once something is solved. There is always something for scientists to solve. Profit for research is not bad but it could be depending on the morals of some people. As stated before, people may hide the cure to a disease for profitable drugs and also to hold a monopoly on the cure. This makes it so that people who can not afford the cure will suffer the repercussions. These people do not deserve to be denied a healthy body but because a company owns the right to the cure, they will.
ReplyDeleteHi Luis, I think you failed to take altruism into consideration. Please restate your answer with it in mind.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI agree with Luis, profit is conditionally a “good” thing in scientific research. For example, the first lab to produce the vaccine for an epidemic will receive the pay out, so laboratories will compete to be first. However, people diseases that can be treated will suffer the most at the hands of large pharmaceutical companies which will go to great lengths to profit off their medication, even when it is defective. In 1984 Bayer discovered their injectible Hemophilia medication was contaminated with the AIDS virus. Bayer pulled the medication off the market in the US, but continued making it and selling it overseas because it was cheaper to produce than the newer clotting medication for hemophilia. The total number of hemophiliacs who contracted AIDS from the medication are incalculable. When companies are motivated by money their focus is profit rather than people.
Bogdanich, W., & Koli, E. (2003, May 21). 2 Paths of Bayer Drug in 80's: Riskier One Steered Overseas. Retrieved January 19, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/22/business/2-paths-of-bayer-drug-in-80-s-riskier-one-steered-overseas.html
To add to Luis’ post, money can very much force you into a direction that may go against one’s morals. This type of act, in a way, when going against one’s morals and making sacrifices for the other side to succeed, which then will cause success to the original person, is called reciprocal altruism. Adrian Raine writes, in The Anatomy of Violence, about reciprocal altruism: “But surely we humans are different from animals...Reciprocal altruism has indeed evolved because in the long run it benefits the performer” (Raine 17). The idea of profit overcomes the idea of good morals and altruism. Think of a lawyer; They’re job is forwarded by money and profit; There is no such thing as a law firm run by morals. (Word Count: 101)
ReplyDelete