[alex43578]

A metric other than profitability seems like a terrible target for private research which (outside of a charity or cause-driven org) needs to justify its expenses.

In the US alone, we have dozens of grants, programs, and funding sources for things like orphan/rare diseases.

[justinclift]

> A metric other than profitability ...

* Quality of life improvement for x people?

* x people cured of [SOME DISEASE]?

(etc)

Those seem like pretty good ideas of the kind of targets we should have. But as you mention, those seem to only be considered for cause driven places or charities.

[alex43578]

As they should be?

For a private company, QOL for someone doesn’t pay the researcher, laboratory chemical supplier, or lab’s landlord. Money does.

You won’t get a cure or treatment if you can’t discover it, get it approved, or distribute it, all of which costs (a lot) of money.

Inevitably, the bigger the quality of life improvement or more significant the impact = more money, so those measures are already indirectly considered.

It’s only incredibly rare diseases that aren’t receiving active research efforts.

[johanvts]

Profitability works because it is/was a good proxy for utility. This breaks as wealth becomes unevenly distributed.