whythawk ratings: measuring effective development

NOTE: To use the advanced features of this site you need javascript turned on.

home arrow aloft: the whythawk blog
About Module

Did you know that emerging markets are lucrative investments?

 

Ask Whythawk.
Announce Module
Learn more Introduction to Unlocking the Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid
Report a comment

Thank you for taking the time to report the following comment to the administrator of this site.
Please complete this short form and click the submit button to process your report.

Name
  
E-mail
  
Reason for reporting comment
  
 
 

Comment in question

...

By: Gavin Chait on 25 July 2007

Nope, Freedem, doesn't wash. The South African government disputes the connection between HIV and AIDS and won't distribute medication even though it's been donated. The US government doesn't like stem cell research and has banned it. The EU hates GM and won't allow it. 
 
These are all MORAL decisions. Not based on profits. And morality is always up for debate whereas profits are beyond dispute. 
 
It's hard to imagine any company deciding not to pursue a line of research for vague and esoteric reasons if a clear profit is presented. You may be concerned that profits may cause a company to rush an untested drug onto the market. That is where the law of consequences comes in. Companies that know they will be penalised for their mistakes will act accordingly, again to protect their profits. 
 
I would rather a company acts on clear profits everyone can understand than on the shifting sands of the arbitrary moral choices of whoever happens to be in charge.

 

» Report this comment to administrator

» Reply to this comment...

»  Go back to the article