Medical Market Failures and Their Remedy

Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 274)

Abstract

There is a general consensus that market-based medical research has failed in some places, in particular, in diseases of the poor and in diseases that afflict very small numbers of people. With no profits to be made, there is no motivation for research. These are known as market failures. Advanced Market Commitments (AMCs) have been proposed as ways of coping with the former. Governments and other public agencies provide prize money and reward anyone who finds, say, a vaccine for pneumococcal disease. Similar government stimulus is called for to address the problems of so-called orphan diseases. These proposals will, if carried through, improve the current state of medical research and delivery, but they still far short on several key points. The problems are discussed and a proposal to socialize all medical research and remove intellectual property rights is explained and defended.

Keywords

Rare Disease Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia Market Failure Orphan Drug Pneumococcal Disease 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Angell, M. 2004. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. New York, NY: Random HouseGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, J.R. 2004. Money, method and medical research. Episteme 1:49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, J.R. 2008. Community of science®. In The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited, eds. M. Carrier, D. Howard, and J. Kourany. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J.R. 2010a. Politics, method, and medical research. Philosophy of Science. Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J.R. 2010b. One shot science. In The Commodification of Academic Research, ed. H. Radder. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hughes, D., et al. 2005. Drugs for exceptionally rare diseases: Do they deserve special status for funding? Quarterly Journal of Medicine 98:829–836.Google Scholar
  7. Krimsky, S. 2003. Science in the Private Interest. New York, NY and Oxford: Rowman & LittlefieldGoogle Scholar
  8. Picard, A. 2008. Canada should follow the U.S. example on ‘orphan’ diseases. Globe and Mail (July 17)Google Scholar
  9. Stiglitz, J. 2006a. Making Globalization Work. New York, NY: NortonGoogle Scholar
  10. Stiglitz, J. 2006b. Scrooge and intellectual property rights. British Medical Journal 333:1279–1280 (23–30 December, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Wilcken, B. 2001. Rare diseases and the assessment of intervention: What sorts of clinical trials can we use? Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease 24:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations