(August 22, 2016 at 2:23 pm)ScienceAf Wrote: But why would they cure cancer for a low cost when they could treat it for somones whole life at a high cost and cash of more money from it.
This is all a bit conspiratorial. The IP laws in the U.S., and in most other places, protect those that are first to market. Anyone producing a cure for cancer would make a windfall. Most of the cost associated with treating cancer is in services, not drugs, so it would take a bit of collusion to enact it.
Another aspect of your cancer scenario that falls flat is the idea of treating it for 'someone's whole life'. 'Whole life' isn't that long for most cancer patients. Far better to cure the cancer and then bilk them for the other 100 prescriptions they'll need when they become octogenarians. Not to mention that the conspiracy would have to include all other pharmaceutical companies and universities globally actively conducting research in this endeavor. Doesn't make much sense.
There's also a $1M check (Nobel) and prestige of having been the one to have discovered a cure for cancer.
