For Session 6, the topic of discussion was the Biobusiness Revolution: Healthcare and Biomedical Sciences (Past, Present and Future). Dr. Shahi posted some facts of Biobusiness to us which included how “Biobusiness already constitutes over 25% of global GDP and employs some 40% of the world's labour force”. However it is also inferred from these figures that a large number of this labour force draw relatively low wages, such as those engaged in “subsistence level farming in developing countries”. This would include 60% and 70% of China and India respectively.
The problem with the medical industry and other businesses for that matter is the obsession with the bottom line. Companies simple cannot solely focus on social responsibility and ignore profits. The swine flu mortality rate was 50%1. The first case of swine flu was reported in Mexico in April 2009 and on October 2009, 7 months later, a vaccine was developed. This of course affected many developed countries and as such the economic benefits for developing a vaccine would be high. There was also an urgency to develop a vaccine. However contrast this to the problem of malaria in Africa and we see that although its mortality rate is between 85-90%2, there is not as much urgency involved in the research and distribution of the treatments and this problem continues to linger. I could be wrong but I would feel that the reason behind this would be the lower economic benefits that a company might have by investing in this field.
With the completion of the Human Genome Project as presented by Danica, the treatment of diseases and other forms of ailments is now viewed from a different perspective. Instead of curing the disease, it would be possible to stop the disease from arising altogether just by altering one's DNA. This of course brings about the age old debate on whether it is right for man to play god. From my point of view, if by inserting or removing a certain gene would eradicate the possibility of a person contracting a particular disease, then this course of research should be pursued. However, if the purpose of such research would be for aesthetic reasons or an “enhancement of the human condition”, I would be against it. The issue that I am concerned about would be the eventual “mixing” of these genes. Assuming that such treatments were to exist, a wide array of people would have their DNA altered with a different gene altered for each specific ailment and yes, this might be a very effective cure for certain diseases. However, the thought that I find troubling would be the genetic make up of future generations and the implications that might arise as a result. There might not be any side effects when such treatments are introduced to a patient at first. But the problem lies in the future generations and if implications really do arise, a large number of people would be affected.
I felt the topic on digitalized medical records could have been discussed further.
Personal Rating: 8/10
No comments:
Post a Comment