It's difficult to bring new drugs to market in the United States, and it isn't going to get easier if plaintiffs' lawyers continue to methodically target drug companies for lawsuits. I'm not saying that there aren't any legitimate drug lawsuits that deserve the attention of lawyers; I'm saying what should be obvious to those who have no stake in defending or suing drug companies.
When you increase litigation against drug companies to the point that defending those suits becomes sufficiently costly then the drug companies will begin to avoid the risk of litigation by not producing certain kinds of drugs. For example, drug companies won't produce drugs that might be marginally profitable, even if the drug will be highly beneficial. In short, they will become increasingly risk-averse.
The plaintiffs' lawyers will say "well, that shows that the system is working because risky drugs shouldn't be produced." And many people will reflexively agree with that statement.
But the world that we live in is not so simple. Many great scientific discoveries happen in an unpredicatable way. Science cannot easily predict how drugs will interact in the entire populace of people to whom the drug might ultimately be prescribed, and "clinical trials" which are obviously necessary, only go so far. At some point risk is going to enter the equation.
Okay, the drug companies are 'risk averse.' So what?
Well the thing is, it's not just the drug companies that have become risk averse. It's our entire nation. We don't like risk. And we think that we know how to avoid it.
Do we, though?
You don't need to a blue-ribbon commission study to see that as a collective body we do a very poor job of analyzing risk. Y2K, terrorist attacks, shark attacks, natural disasters, meteors in outer space can quickly captivate our attention. And often affect how we act in response. We tend to overestimate the risk of these things because they are played up in the media.
But we tend to completely ignore mudane risks like eating unhealthy foods, lack of exercise, and gambling (which Casinos are keenly aware of).
What is the legal system doing to make sure that it doesn't let our poor ability to analyze risk threaten legitimate scientific exploration? The answer is probably not enough. But that's just my view.
Hey, I have fears too, and perhaps those are coming into play. What are my fears? That people in this country are becoming too simplistic in the way that they look at things. Arrogance and smugness can harm people as much as taking excessive risks. And it isn't only corporations and drug companies that can be arrogant, smug and self-serving.
The plaintiff lawyers who have targeted drug companies may be using our fear of risk to justify an action that is harmful to society in a subtle but significant way. And maybe they don't really know that they are using our fears in a harmful way; maybe they are completely well-intentioned.
But then one could say that the Casino pit boss is well-intentioned too when he compliments the patrons at the blackjack table and wishes them good luck.
What if a group of citizens in the United States decided to start their own news website, and what if the next President of the United States was elected as a result of coverage by that publication? Well, obviously it will not happen any time soon in this country. But it has happened in South Korea:
"The influence of OhmyNews is substantial, and expanding. It's credited with having helped elect the nation's current president, Roh Moo Hyun, who ran as a reformer. Roh granted his first post-election interview to the publication, snubbing the three major conservative newspapers that have dominated the print-journalism scene for years.
Even taxi drivers who don't have time for newspapers have heard of OhmyNews. The site draws millions of visitors daily. Advertisers are supporting both the Korean-language Web site (www.ohmy news.com) and a weekly print edition, and the operation has been profitable in recent months, according to its chief executive and founder, Oh Yeon-Ho."
