Fiscal morality in the Medical Tech industry is definitely questionable, and does include a double standard. In 2008 we still have yet to see a cure for the common cold, but ironically plenty of "medicine" is available if you should get the sniffles. It's hard to pinpoint the agendas of med-tech companies, especially those focused in pharmaceuticals because of inherent contradictions such as these. Evidently though, the productivity of these companies in creating actual cures, has been constantly subjected to several social factors. They exemplify the paradoxical nature of the numerous intricacies involved. To name just a few, political and economic instability continually stand in the way of unabated advances in medical science. A harsh reality in this world: human actions are contrived to monetary policies and political spheres of influences, so to dedicate all corporate R&D towards non-profit ingenuity breaks pockets and upsets senators.
Therefore on one hand, the Medical Technology industry as a whole must keep some sort of revenue stream, straying from pure philanthropic ideologies. On the other however, there is much being done in the biotechnology sector promising certain "breakthroughs". Positive advances are being made in stem cell research specifically regarding its application to both hematology and oncology procedures. On December 8th, Breakthroughdigest.com reported on the work of two men named Gerhard Bauer and Joseph Anderson. They reside at the UC Davis institute for regenerative cures in Sacramento as integral parts of the staff. Currently their mission is to subject a gene therapy method that was successful in Germany, to substantial testing here in the US possibly with the benefit of curing the AIDS virus.
Very promising outlook for stem cell researchers, even though in the past this sort of science was perceived to be taboo and heretically labeled as "Playing God". Overall though, as a social institution, medical science will always survive through a volatile mix of economic slippery slopes and moral paradigm shifts. Biotechnology is a perfect example of this, because it has proven to be successful financially during a horrible recession. Yet like many companies with a medical focus in this market, their humanitarian appeal has increased. Thereby transforming perceptions of their agendas, and perhaps serving as a catalyst for new mission statements; gearing their business model closer to the "humanitarian" side.
The biotechnology industry was said to have gained 60 billion in revenue growth by 2006 according to Ernst & Young online. The effects of that bubble are being seen now, and will flourish through the next economy.
Each company in the industry may hold interests that are integrally different; but there is a vivid distinction to be made between research institutes, working hard to find answers while also riding economic waves, and pharmaceutical companies that lobby and manipulate markets for pure profit. Even though the medical science companies are making tons of money, we can rest assure that advancements will be good for society as a whole and not a few economic interests. Its an issue of quality in morality and morality in quality, because artificial medicines can be hazardous to your health; but may be sorely needed to save your life.
Technology and sciences have always been ahead of societal times and receive much criticism for it. The future does shed some light on the topic though, with priorities being diverted from monetary gain for investors. Hopefully breaking the stigmas that exist now. With the right direction, medical research and development can utilize its economic institutionalization as an asset to start pumping out some cures for the sick, at home and abroad.