Merck & Co Company's Drug Studies

Merck & Co Inc was one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies for drug production and research with continually growing revenues throughout the 1970s and reaching almost $2 billion in 1978. Accordingly, the company allocated hundreds of millions of funds each year towards various projects to research and develop viable drugs to sustain continued growth. For Merck, the average length of time to bring a drug to the market was twelve years with costs hovering around $200 million dollars.

A lot of potential drugs did not provide a large enough return for them to be viable for production. The government wanted to improve the rate of production for medicines that helped against rare diseases. So, they decided provide tax benefits to companies that partook in the creation of such cures. River blindness or “onchocerciasis” is caused by a parasitic worm brought forth by bites from black flies whereby blindness develops after constant affliction. The victims of this disease are spread across thirty-five countries and number in 340,000 people in 1978 according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Within one of Merck’s research projects, a compound called ivermectin was an antiparasitic drug used for veterinary purposes, but it was also found to have potential to treat a wide variety of parasitic illnesses including river blindness. The issue lies in the low success rate, even if the drug is created, there exists no incentives that would give the pharmaceutical companies any benefit for curing deceases like river blindness, which makes it lack economic viability.

What are the ethical issues

The ethical dilemma is that to save people Merck & Co. needs to create a medicine for river blindness that may not bring any profit to the company and has a low chance of success. Or they can simply continue with using the compound for veterinary purposes for the sake of profit. Merck & Co is responsible in creation of this medicine regardless, especially considering their slogan is putting people before profits.

What are the effects on each group?

Society – People in third world countries that are suffering from river blindness would greatly benefit from a potential cure if Merck & Co. decide to develope the drug.

Employees – Employees that are currently working for Merck & Co. may be affect financial if the company doesn’t make a profit from the potential new drug. Researcher and scientist are a pharmaceutical company’s biggest asset in terms of resources.

Shareholders – Investors may be inclined to contribute funds for Merck & Co, as they would not get a return on their investments, if they results of the compound came out poor

Merck & Co – Merck has everything to lose if the outcome for formulating a new compound for river blindness was unsuccessful. Not being able to turn a profit on their new drug may have negative effects on shareholder’s value, but this would also boost the reputation of Merck & Co for doing the ethical thing. What are the alternatives?

1. Continue to develop their existing compound for the animal health market and don’t fund research towards a treatment for river blindness.
2. Put time and resources towards the creation of a new medicine for curing river blindness. Merck & CO. discovered a possible cure for the parasite condition by the creation of Ivermectin which can help millions of people.

What is your decision? Justify It.

Merck & Co. should continue the studies into the production of the cure for river blindness. One of Merck’s main principles is that they try to remember that the medicine they create is for the people not the money. That would also be the most morally positive decision they could make. If Merck & Co. states that they prioritize people over profits, then they should practice what they preach and continue creating the cure. Merck is also the only company that successfully found the compound ivermectin that has the highest chance of helping people infected with river blindness parasite. Once they create the cure, Merck & Co will not only save millions of people but they will get phenomenal recognition for the achievement.

In terms of potential drawbacks of this decision: Merck could get assistance from the government in the production of the cure. Or they could ask other companies for help in creating the cure, so that not only the cost is divided between the companies but also an improvement in man power is provided.