More Money or Better Science? : A Controversial Debate
In January of 1999, in her small lab in a foreign country, Dr. Savanburgh completed a study and discovered that a protein (HAMLET) in human breast milk can be used to kill cancer cells. In this paper I seek to assess how economics influenced the research and potential marketing of orphan drugs such as HAMLET. I argue that economics influences the research and potential marketing behind orphan drugs such as HAMLET based on potential bias in research and possible money loss in marketing these products. I will support my thesis by analyzing and examining “Mothers Milk Response of the Scientific Community” from Archetype and “Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition related scientific articles” by Leonardo A. Lesser and finally “Mother’s Milk From the Lab to the Pharmacy” by Archetype.
The importance of money can influence the amount of research able to be conducted behind orphan drugs such as HAMLET and may even bias the results. According to Mother’s Milk, “If this work had come from a well-known lab like mine at NCI, you’d have reporters calling you six days till Sunday wanting your story and grant money to do whatever you want. It’s like general motors versus a mom and pap garage operation. But I’s coming from a small lab in a foreign country”. Furthermore, Since Dr. Savanborgh is a young scientist from small unknown lab her work will be laughed at in the scientific community even though it may be groundbreaking. This is significant because if Dr. Savanborgh cannot get the grant money she will not be able to further her work on HAMLET. In contrast, the importance of money may cause research to be biased. As stated in “Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition related scientific articles” by Leonardo A. Lesser, “when research is fudned by some agency that can be expected to get a favorable outcome that results are indeed more favorable and...