This is a big step in cancer research as scientists are making steps towards controlling the immune system and ultimately striking down cancer. While virus treatment has been used before this specific virus that has been made is able to bring specific cancer fighting cells that cannot be tricked.
By making advances in science such as this, we are able to live longer lives which has a huge impact on the economy. In 2011 the United States was estimated to have spent over 88 billion dollars in medical costs just to fight cancer. The American Cancer Society estimates that this year 589,430 US residents will die from cancer. There is a huge economic impact from cancer. However with advances such as the one from the article our ability to treat cancer and possibly find a cure could lead to longer life expectancies which then in turn leads to higher economic prosperity.
Advances such as using the herpes virus makes the thought of a cure seem more attainable. However, a question to think about is if there ends up being a cure, how will prices be effected. There would almost be an infinite demand to obtain the cure, however firms could definitely take advantage of this and raise prices without really hurting there overall revenue. But does morality trump economics and business especially when we are dealing with life and death.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2016/01/fighting_brain_cancer_with_herpes_virus
Companies will certainly take full advantage of consumers if this treatment for cancer is approved. With past discoveries, drugs that can treat Hepatitis C and AIDs have been sold at astronomical prices. This is due to an inelastic demand for these drugs and life. Hopefully, if this cure is approved the government can step in and place a price ceiling. This would allow for more realistic prices that can be afforded by those who truly need the treatment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if the government steps in and allows for this information to become patented like many other medications before, then there will be a barrier to entry for other firms and prices would rise as a result. Patents essentially allow for a monopoly of the product. I'm not saying that this would be the best option but if more firms had the ability to enter the market, it would reach an equilibrium. I know its terrible to say, but a lot of businesses take advantage of death. We do not put the funeral industry under the microscope for taking advantage of the demand for funeral services which is most likely inelastic.
ReplyDeleteI like what Skye said a lot here. Unfortunately it would be expected to see huge prices for these kind of drugs, since again the demand for them is inelastic. A price ceiling set by the government would be very beneficial for those in need.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Doug and Skye on this one. A price ceiling would be very helpful for the consumers. The cancer industry is worth billions of dollars. The demand for any kind of cure is extremely high, which will cause prices to be even higher, and the government will definitely need to step in to make the cure affordable for those who need it if the cure gets approved.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the company would become the monopoly in that field. I remembered that one of my economic professor told me that if you do not maximize the profit, you do not worth to have the monopoly. I, however, believe that this patent would be interfered by government, so that the price could be controlled within an affordable price for US residences. Moreover, US is not the only country which is fighting with cancer. The profit of exporting the treatment would definitely have a large positive impact on US economy.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Michael economically, morally, government intervention will be needed if a cure is ever found. Companies may fail to create sustainable revenue selling the new cure and our GDP will certainly fall in the lack of production of medical supplies which makes up a great deal of our economy, but a cure to cancer would be one of the biggest breakthroughs of all time. The cost to our GDP would not come close to the benefit of curing people of such a ravenous disease.
ReplyDelete