The Need for Profit
‘Human need, rather than profit, should always be the main concern of scientific research.’ Discuss.
Dissecting the Question
Warning! There is a trap door here. At first glance, you may think that the onus is on you to prove that either human need or profit should always or never be the main concern of scientific research. But that is clearly not the case. You may argue that human need should always be the main concern or that human need may not always be the main concern. Keyword being ‘always’.
If your overarching argument (thesis statement) is that human need or profit should never be the main concern, you would have exceeded your burden of proof. In other words, you would have wasted your time and provided an answer that is more than what the question is asking for.
Definitions
Human need: To fulfill it is to provide something that is of great importance or necessity to a human, collective or individual.
Scientific research: Scientific research is the empirical and systemic investigation of scientific theories and hypotheses, typically to yield new discoveries or improve on an existing pool of knowledge.
Context
Scientific research and the economy for science transcends geographical boundaries today. Further, this particular question references ‘human need’. With the assumption that ‘human needs’ are universal, and considering the fact that profit is part of every self-interested man’s vocabulary, there is no need to localize this discussion.
Substantive
Evidently, human need cannot always be the primary concern in costly scientific research. Research isn’t cheap, and the extensiveness and rigor of the research will dictate the price of the research. Market forces are able to dictate the viability and necessity of the research. A person suffering from Gerstmann–Sträussler–Scheinker syndrome (GSS) for example, an extremely rare and fatal motor neuron disease, needs a cure or he will die from it eventually. This distinct cousin of ALS is a killer, but the incidence of GSS is around 5 cases per 100 million inhabitants per year. As callous as this may sound, a human need to some is not a human need to all.
By keeping an eye on the price tag and the viability of research, research institutions and scientists are able to tackle the most pressing problems that humanity faces, rather than fatal outcomes that a small subset of the population encounters. The price tag of research, therefore, defines the importance of the ‘need’ and allows companies and scientists to make a hard, quantitative choice.
Further, if we disregard the price of the research and expend our funds willy-nilly, scientists and institutions may end up spending large amounts of money on research that isn’t demanded by society. Companies that are that inefficient will eventually succumb to market forces and may end up in a financially strapped position. A firm that is unable to generate sustainable income will not be able to utilize their profits to fund other research. This results in a net negative for society.
That being said, assuming that a human need is indeed pressing and spawns corresponding scientific research that would translate into viable products that consumers do require, the cost of research would be justified.
As it is clear that in many cases, the price of research is a major factor for consideration, the statement presented in the question does not stand.
Counter Point
First of all, human needs are not arbitrary. Even if we were to concede that some scientific research has a larger impact than others, does that mean that a need of one is not more important than a need of another? The cries of a dying child are universal and elicit pain regardless of cause. Issues like global warming aren’t localized to specific geographies. The ice doesn’t just melt in the Alps but stay solid in Antarctica. Adopting a utilitarian, Bentham-like mindset that purports to ‘maximize happiness’ by picking who lives and who dies through the value of the dollar is akin to obnoxious and inhumane. Who are we to quantify one person’s value? Who are we to decide what scientific research to embark on and who to save?
The purpose of scientific research is to serve and benefit society, not the majority of society, but society as a whole. Science shouldn’t discriminate. If society operated on that logic, we should shove the poor, the disabled, and the elderly into a corner and disregard their needs. It may cost more to bring clean drinking, potable water to a child in Rwanda than the city of New York simply because Rwanda is a landlocked country with few potable water basins, but it doesn’t mean that the child in Rwanda isn’t worth saving. Is an impoverished child dying of dehydration in a rural part of Africa less important than her wealthy counterpart living in the United States? All this means is that more extensive research should be embarked on to help bring affordable, clean drinking water to the masses in Rwanda. The cost of life is never ‘too high,’ and the cost of research should never be too.
By placing an overly large emphasis on the price of research, we risk segregating the haves and the have-nots. Scientific research needed to help the poor is relatively more costly because the poor cannot afford to pay for the product of the research. This results in research budgets tilted in favor of developed nations and individuals that are considered the masses.
Needs are needs. Period. To price research out of the reach of a subset of society is to enforce the will of birth lottery and pervert the purpose of science.
Science doesn’t discriminate, but we do. And we should be better than that.
SUBSTANTIVE
The problem with indiscriminate altruism is that it isn’t truly altruistic. If a scientific research project is not commercially viable, the cost of the product of the research will naturally be priced out of the reach of the masses. Clearly, unrelenting altruism doesn’t work. If it does, Rwanda, for example, would be clad in waste water recycling plants, the product of years of extremely expensive research.
The importance of considering the price of research cannot be overstated. In the aforementioned example, wealthy city-states like Singapore are able to afford expensive waste water recycling, again the product of expensive and extensive scientific research, but the less-fortunate in Rwanda will not be able to. This means that research should always be priced to meet the demands of the target audience. Research targeted at the needs of wealthy city-states should have a different from that targeted at the less fortunate who may be as willing but less able to pay for it. By considering the price, researchers and scientists will be forced to come up with more innovative and affordable solutions for the less-fortunate.
At the end of the day, companies that fund unsustainable and unviable research will eventually end up raising the cost of their product to ensure commercial viability. For example, Kalobios, a leader in the treatment of ‘neglected and rare diseases’, raised the price of a drug used to treat a dangerous parasitic infection from $13.50 to a more commercially viable $750. Clearly, this prices a need out of reach of many consumers. By disregarding prices, firms may end up turning a need into a luxury, one that the average consumer may not be able to afford. The desired end result is therefore not achieved.
Counter Point
The fact is that individuals now have the option of purchasing the anti-parasitic drug produced by Kalobios. For example, if Kalobios started development of said drug with a profit motivation, it is unlikely to develop said drug. Parasites are uncommon in first-world, developed countries. It is precisely the poor and impoverished that require access to these drugs. If firms considered the cost of the research at every point and discontinued research into neglected and rare diseases, one wouldn’t even be able to obtain drugs for them, even at a cost of $750. If companies undertook all of their research with the profit motivation as their sole purpose, many of the life-saving, world-changing innovations that came as a result of the costly scientific research would not exist today.
Even if we were to concede that the needs of some aren’t the needs of all, and that needs are arbitrary, we need to recognize that scientific research is a process and not a simple, one-off experiment. Scientific research builds upon the discoveries and innovations of other researchers. Research that may seem overly costly and irrelevant today may very well lead to the life-saving, comfort-enhancing technologies of tomorrow. For example, the computer was unlikely to be invented should there not have been the discovery of electricity and invention of alternating current (AC) power. By cherry picking research projects, we may end up losing out on game-changing innovations.
Further, we need to consider key challenges in today’s world that do not have a profit incentive. Consider challenges today such as global food shortages due to rising population levels or the fall in biodiversity. These are challenges that require the best minds on this planet to tackle. However, because we cannot make quick money by saving trees in the Amazon, few resources are dedicated to climate-change research. Because agriculture is a low-profit industry, we shy away from solving the impending food crisis. Our profit motivation diverts resources away from these key challenges and into other ‘needs’ such as beauty creams and vitality supplements.
SUBSTANTIVE
There is a reason why larger companies are able to undertake more research than smaller ones — they make more profit.
The bottom line matters for any institution, and a profit-driven company benefits society more than one that isn’t. Higher profits will enable a company to not just tackle more challenging and costly problems, but also tackle a wider array of problems. Companies like Pfizer and GSK rely on their huge profits to drive medicine forward. More profits translate into high salaries for researchers, attracting more qualified and innovative scientists into research. Higher profits also translate into a greater incentive for firms to continue to invest in research, as they are able to see a payoff on the horizon.
Further, profit motivated companies will also drive the cost of research and the cost of the product of research down. This allows for the research and its product to be priced in the most affordable manner possible, allowing the product of the research to reach the hands of more people.
Lastly, not all research yields fruit. Companies investing in research are essentially placing their bets in unproven and unknown ‘investment vehicles’. Firms need the financial cushion and the payoff benefits to continue driving scientific research. Without such a cushion, firms may end up having ‘dry-seasons’ and lose financial sustainability. A company in default is no better than one that is churning out life-saving technologies.
Counter Point
First of all, simply because firms enjoy greater profits doesn’t mean that they will spend more on research. Drug companies, for example, are notorious for their greed. They have utilized their profits to acquire other patents and firms, all in the pursuit of profit. For example, when Mylan made record profits in the early 2000s, it spent its cash on the acquisition of EpiPen in 2007 rather than on additional research. In 2008, the price of the EpiPen increased seven-fold. This draws out the logical fallacy that assumes causality in the aforementioned substantive. Greater profits do not always equate to better research.
The majority of groundbreaking research carried out today is run out by academics in academic institutions. These institutions were designed to carry the entirety of society forward, not just a subset of society. These institutions, legally and morally classified as charitable institutions, were founded with the purpose of advancing knowledge and humanity. These institutions were never built to factor in the cost and the profitability of research.
The Conclusion
Clearly, the price matters. And in certain cases, the cost and the profitability of research are key priorities. While the information generated through scientific research transcends boundaries, the applicability of the research is likely to be localized. While morally, we would love to do all that we can to assist a sick child or a famished elder in a developing nation, the fact remains that research cannot be easily translated between borders. And then there’s the question of long-term sustainability and viability of the firms and institutions conducting the research. Clearly, while science doesn’t discriminate, socio-economic conditions do. Further, not all solutions are applicable to all contexts. Even if we disregard the other arguments put forth in the essay, we have established that there are cases in which profit should take precedence over the need of some. This renders the absolute statement in the question false.
Of course, there will always be necessary scientific research that no institution will be able to afford in a sustainable manner. This is where that burden falls onto the shoulders of government institutions, institutions that are truly able to forego the profit motivation. This is where institutions like NASA excel. These institutions are not included in today’s discussion because the dilemma presented above has never applied to them.
Therefore, in conclusion, while human need is a key driver of scientific research, it should not always the foremost concern.