Afford

In my discussion yesterday, I deliberately omit the macroscopic problem on the amount of medical knowledge that a human society could afford to acquire.

The consideration is simple: Imagine there's no countries (oh, John Lennon!) and we count the GDP of the whole world. It is entirely cost-effective to spend money and develop a compound called 2-(acetyloxy)-benzoate, which could reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke by about one-third in selected patients. (Yes, we now call this very chemical aspirin.)

But, how about a new one that reduces the relative risk of a nondescript composite end point by 10% (and the absolute risk by 1%), and, for its development, being hundreds of thousands of times more expensive than your good old aspirin? How does it compare to spending the money (and human resource) on education or elderly care?

After all, you can't reduce the risk indefinitely. By the law of nature the risk could not be reduced to zero, and zero is the sun - where Icarus of science are trying to get by wings of feathers and wax.