River blindness, or what is formally known as onchocerciasis, is a disease identified as a public health and socioeconomic problem in over 35 developing countries by the World Health Organization (WHO) (Wicks, Andrew C. 2010). What caused River Blindness was; a parasitic worm which was being carried by tiny Black Flies. The flies would breed in fast moving rivers, which most villages are located. The worms enter our blood streams by having the flies bite into our flesh – multiple bites (up to a thousand) can be conceived in a day. The larvae, which grows into the parasitic worm then enter our bodies and can grow to more than two feet in length (Wicks, Andrew C. 2010). The real danger comes in with the worms still reproving, conceiving millions of microscopic off-springs. Upon reaching this stage, victims experience severe itchiness within the skins, depigmentation of the skin, and potential blindness due to the invasion of parasitic worms. The disease was first realized in the early 1890’s, but scientist did not make the revelation that River Blindness was related to Black Flies until 1926. By 1978, it was estimated that 340,000 people were blind due to River Blindness, and no cure that could safely be used for community treatment was available (Wicks, Andrew C. 2010). It was then that during the late 1970’s, Dr. P. Roy Vagelos, who was then the head of Merck research labs, had received a memorandum from a senior researcher in parasitology. The memorandum was from Dr. William C. Campbell, in which it contained information perpetrating Ivermectin, a new antiparasitic under research for use in animals (Wicks, Andrew C. 2010). To test out Campbell’s hypothesises; Merck would have to invest millions for experimentation and testing. If the experiment produced effective results, all those afflicted with River Blindness could not afford to buy the cure. At this point, Vagelos had to decide between investing towards a cure, that even if successful, could not pay itself off.
As reported above, one of the main concerns for development of Ivermectin related drugs was that the return on investment was inevitably low. If Vagelos refused Campbell’s research proposal, that would destroy Merck’s company philosophy – “We try never to forget that medicine is for the people, it is not for profits.” and the company’s morale (Wicks, Andrew C. 2010). Alternatively, the decision to proceed with the Ivermectin drug could cause adverse health effects when used on humans, causing negative results with regards to the veterinary counterpart of Ivermectin. It should be noted that in earlier test results, Ivermectin had varied results with specific species of mammals. Dr. Brian Duke has stated that “There is always a worry that some race of sub-section of the human population might be adversely affected.” (Wicks, Andrew C. 2010). There are also a series of questions that are raised when the drug is released in third world countries, like traces of the drug showing up in foods, the human version of Ivermectin being deflected into the black market, or could the drug hurt specific species of animals in unknown ways? These are just some of the main concerns for not releasing the ivermectin drug against releasing the Ivermectin drug to the public.
Merck, in 1978 was one of the largest producers for prescription drugs in the world, with origins in Germany and with three hundred years of history. Even with Merck’s background history, producing a new drug was very costly and many risks are involved when creating a new drug. On average, new drugs will take 12 years and approximately $200 million to deliver to the market, not to mention the labour cost of thousands of scientists (Wicks, Andrew C. 2010). By introducing this new drug to the market, it will adversely affect Merck in terms of