Rower_CPU said
Let me get this straight. You're arguing that it's wrong to find a cure that costs the same as current treatments? That's pretty sad.
1) I'm not saying that a cure that costs the same as a treatment is bad thing. In fact this would be a great thing, but the proviso is - seeing as we would be doing the research the cure should be less expensive than if the drug company developed it on its own. I don't believe the drug companies would provide the cure cheaply or the cost of treatments would go down.
Unfortunately the drug companies are out to make profit to appease their shareholders so why should they, from a profit making POV, charge less for either when they know there is still a market that has to purchase the cure/treatments?
There are millions of people infected with HIV in Africa but you don't see the drugs companies reducing their prices and trying to re-coup costs through volume sales.
2) Yes you are right the prohibitive cost of drugs is due to the drug companies and not the researchers. Finding a cure that the drugs companies charge lots for will not help the majority of people, just those that can afford it.
We're going to find a cure for diseases through folding looooooooooooong before we find ET.
Again statistically you are probably correct, but that doesn't make it SETI any less valid than folding.
Just because you discover the way in which a protein folds does not lead to the conclusion that have a cure. It is by all means a first step to a better understanding of the disease.