Q4.One of the scientists working in the R&D laboratory of a major pharmaceutical company discovers that one of the company’s bestselling veterinary drugs has the potential to cure a currently incurable liver disease which is prevalent in tribal areas. However, developing a variant of the drug suitable for human beings entailed a lot of research and development having a huge expenditure to the extent of Rs. 50 crores. It was unlikely that the company would recover the cost as the disease was rampant only in poverty-stricken areas having very little market otherwise. If you were the CEO, then (a) Identify the various actions that you could take (b) Evaluate the pros and cons of each of your actions

As CEO, I face a profound ethical dilemma: balancing the company's financial viability with the moral imperative to develop a life-saving drug for an incurable liver disease prevalent in tribal areas. This entails a Rs. 50 crore R&D cost with no market recovery.

The core conflict lies between the company's fiduciary duty to shareholders (profit maximization) and its ethical obligation to society (saving vulnerable lives). This invokes Utilitarianism versus financial prudence.

My potential actions as CEO are:

1. Develop the drug independently as a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiative.
2. Seek partnerships with government, NGOs, or other pharmaceutical companies.
3. Seek government funding, grants, or subsidies for R&D and production.
4. License the technology to a non-profit organization or government entity.
5. Abandon the project due to financial non-viability.

1. Develop Independently (CSR Initiative)

• Pros: Fulfills social responsibility, enhances corporate image and goodwill.
• Cons: Significant financial burden (Rs. 50 crores), potential shareholder dissent.

2. Seek Partnerships (Government, NGOs, Other Pharma)

• Pros: Shares financial burden and risk, leverages diverse expertise for wider reach.
• Cons: Slower decision-making, potential loss of control over intellectual property.

3. Seek Government Funding and Subsidies

• Pros: Reduces company's financial risk, aligns with public health goals.
• Cons: Bureaucracy and delays, uncertainty of approval.

4. License Technology to a Non-profit or Government Entity

• Pros: Saves lives without direct financial burden, upholds CSR and positive public perception.
• Cons: Forfeits potential future revenue, limited control over development.

5. Abandon the Project

• Pros: Avoids significant financial loss, allows focus on profitable ventures.
• Cons: Major ethical failure, severe reputational damage, loss of life-saving drug.

Considering ethical imperative and financial realities, a balanced approach involves seeking partnerships with government/NGOs or securing government funding. This fulfills social responsibility, mitigates financial risks, and ensures the drug reaches those in need without jeopardizing long-term viability.