Another One

David Sklansky · #1 08-09-2004, 08:43 AM

You are a research scientist for a drug company. Your next blockbuster drug is 90% to save 1,000 lives a year. It is about to be approved. You come across data that shows that your company's most recent drug is apparently causing more side effects than expected and is killing 50 people a year. You have the power to supress this evidence. If you don't your company will go bankrupt and it will be many years delay before the new drug will be on the market.

James Boston · #2 08-09-2004, 09:14 AM

Let the company go under. Take the new drug to a better company. I can't see how the knowledge of curing disease can be suppressed because the company who's R&D discovered the drug is now defunct.

David Sklansky · #3 08-09-2004, 09:44 AM

Don't make me be so meticulous in framing the example. The idea is not to find ways of wiggling out of the main point here.

Cerril · #4 08-09-2004, 09:44 AM

I suppose the answer differs based on what you're getting at.

First, the solution I'd try to shoot for would be to get the drug approved, then 'uncover' the evidence about the other drug. There's no reason for this company to be the one to benefit from the newer drug.

If that's not possible, I'll sacrifice 50 to save 1000, if that's the question, assuming no other factors.

James Boston · #5 08-09-2004, 09:51 AM

I understand that main point. Should your sacrifice 50 lives to save a thousand? (something like that anyway) My point is that any example you frame is going to be situational, and is going to have some way to "wiggle out of." You're asking a broad theoretical, moral question. The problem is that there isn't any underlying answer, each individual answer is going to be situational.

Mayhap · #6 08-09-2004, 09:55 AM

Get me a shovel. I'll bury that evidence deeply provided that the drug is 100% and not 90%. I'd want the sure thing here.
/M

Mayhap · #7 08-09-2004, 10:00 AM

On second thought, I'm going to supress the evidence. There's too much of a negative situation wrought out of being morally perfect here.
/M

playerfl · #8 08-09-2004, 10:02 AM

I have no doubt that this is a common occurrance, except that the actual numbers are much larger, but the percentage of deaths is smaller. Perhaps saving or extending the lifespan of 1 million and killing 10 thousand.

There are people that are very opposed to many common vaccines because healthy people can receive vaccination and die from it. The Anthrax vaccine is an example. A large number of troops were ordered to receive it even though it was known a certain percentage of healthy individuals could die from it.

David Sklansky · #9 08-09-2004, 10:04 AM

Get me a shovel. I'll bury that evidence deeply provided that the drug is 100% and not 90%. I'd want the sure thing here.
/M

Uh Uh. 90%

OrangeHeat · #10 08-09-2004, 10:08 AM

spock says "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

It is a lose lose situation - like splitting 7's in BJ facing a high dealer card.

Both are -EV, one is just less -EV than the other. In this case we have guilt instead of dollars. If you were to go with a strictly guilt EV approach you would have to supress the evidence.

Tough spot to be in when your EV decision involves life and not $$.

Orange