Merck Case Study Relevant Facts: Merck was one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. Merck was about to lose patent protection for two of its best-selling drugs, which accounted for a significant portion of their $2 billion in annual sales. Merck began to invest millions of dollars in research (up to 1 billion dollars) and in three years was able to discover four powerful drugs. Profits weren't the only thing Merck cared about; The founder of Merck believed that "medicine is for people. Not for profits." • He also believed that following the “medicine is for people” philosophy would lead to profits and should not fail yet.• River blindness is caused by parasitic worms, which can be found in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.• These places are developing, many citizens are poor. • Worm larvae can enter the body through fly bites, and some people get thousands of them a day. • Worms can cause grotesque growths, but the main problem lies in reproduction when millions of offspring are released into the system. •The resulting itching is so intense that those infected commit suicide. • Eventually, the larvae can cause blindness. • Two existing drugs could kill the parasite, but have serious, potentially fatal side effects. • The only safe combat measure available was insecticides which over time lose effectiveness with the immunity of the flies. • On average, a drug requires $200 million in research and 12 years to produce. • To stay in business (and alleviate human suffering), companies must make complex decisions about which drugs offer the most promise. • Investing time/money in drugs for rare diseases is risky (because the target audience is small). • There are enough people with river blindness… middle of the paper… cinquevermectin in the first place. We also wouldn't want to risk Merck going bankrupt, as it appears to have the capacity to produce many useful drugs. They had already proven to produce six useful, safe and potent drugs: the medical world would not want to lose such skilled creators. The best choice, then, would be for Merck to contribute to the research, but include other pharmaceutical companies and private donors to help with financial and personnel costs. This funding would allow Merck and other companies to cheaply sell, or even provide, the drug to those who desperately need it. To implement this kind of plan, Merck should take the lead. They should actively seek out organizations, companies and private donors and explain the wonderful consequences for huge populations with the success of ivermectin.