The Star mentions in passing that many major drug research companies are kind of quietly hoping someone else discovers an HIV vaccine, because there would be massive pressure to give it away for free.
What would happen if that potential financial disincentive were eliminated? What would happen if an endowment fund were created to throw massive amounts of money at the people who discover an HIV vaccine on the condition that it's distributed for free?
Imagine, for instance, that everyone involved in the team that first discovers a vaccine gets their salary matched for life. Everyone from the CEO to the student lab techs. Every time they earn a dollar, the endowment fund gives them another dollar. Even if they leave their pharmaceutical job. Or if that isn't reasonable, imagine if everyone on the team gets their mortgage paid off (or a home bought for them if they rent) and free university tuition for their entire family. If the economics of the situation also require throwing some money at the company itself, so be it. My general point is to create a situation where discovering a feasible HIV vaccine would lead to significant financial gain for everyone involved, without hindering access to the vaccine.
Mr. Gates? Mr. Buffett? I'm looking at you!
2 comments:
I don't think I like that idea.
For one thing, it would set a precedent. If you do it for whomever discovers an HIV vaccine, I think you'd have to offer similar deals for cancer vaccines, heart disease treatments, pills that regulate obesity and on and on.
I assume the pharma and research division employees would get paid their salaries, even if the companies were pressured to give the vaccine away. The article notes that they would probably be in line for a Nobel prize and worldwide praise, which I think they probably could turn into additional money. Just about anyone attached to the vaccine discovery would be sought after for other medical research, public speaking, medical lectures, etc., that might compensate them in a manner that matches their regular salary many times over.
If these companies and employees need even more compensation to motivate them, if the desire to cure or significantly limit a major disease, coupled with the potential for additional fame and riches isn't quite enough for them, I'm not sure I want (or would want Gates or Buffett or similar) to contribute anything else that encourages such a greedy and materialistic attitude.
It depends on whether the situation for HIV is unique or not. I assumed that the kind-of-wishing-someone-else-would-discover-it element is unique to HIV, since it was explicitly stated in the article. I can see arguments for why it might be unique (the general poverty of the populations that would benefit most from a vaccine, the fact that this is a disease that actively destroys the immune system, the relative powerlessness of some of the populations most susceptible, etc.) but I don't actually know enough about the situation to say whether it is. It's also a question of whether the pressure to donate the vaccine has a demotivating effect, even a subtle one. Again, I assumed it might, because they felt the need to mention this in the article. People who know more about vaccine research than me would have to figure out whether ridiculous riches would actually improve the likelihood of a vaccine being developed. Maybe they see these possible disadvantages but they're doing the best possible job anyway, and all the money in the world can't make their research go faster. (Like even if you offered me a billion dollars, I still couldn't translate 10,000 words in one day.) Or maybe financial motivation would get them more equipment/more people/whatever, which would be more helpful.
I agree that the greed aspect is highly distasteful, but HIV is an extreme case, and I think if obscene amounts of money were the only thing standing between us and a vaccine, that distastefulness would be negligible in the long run.
Post a Comment