> Suppose this wasn't the case. The news headlines would of course be "Experimental drugs being tested on minorities". That would be a PR disaster.
Interesting. When you say suppose "this" wasn't the case, what do you mean by "this?" Do you mean the neglecting minorities in medical research leading to numerous negative consequences?
From what I understand correctly, you are trying to state the negation of OP's headline. If so, it's unclear how you arrived at that specific headline. Can you walk me through your line of reasoning?
> Essentially, the drug companies can't win. People will find something to complain about.
That's quite a bleak forecast. Can you clarify what it means for drug companies to win?
From my frame of reference, the game is the political arena, and a participant (or political entity) is "winning" if they can ensure they're interests and concerns are considered and upheld. Between 1998 and 2017, Pharmaceutical/Health product industry spent 3.7 billion dollars lobbying on capitol hill [0]. Interestingly, this was the highest amount spent by any industry. Moreover, it was 1.2 billion dollars more than the next highest industry, the insurance industry. If we examine just 2016 (and 2015), we see that Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PRMA) spent 19 million on lobbying [1], up about 1 million from the prior year. PRMA represents companies in the pharmaceutical industry, i.e. Big Pharma.
It was surpassed in spending by the Blue Cross, American Hospital Association, Chamber of Commerce, and National Association of Realtors.
Further down that list, we see Pfizer chipped in 9.7 million (up from 7 million in 2015), and the Biotechnology innovation organization chipped 9.2 million (up from 8.3 million in 2015).
At least to me, this doesn't seem like the behavior of someone that is eliminated from a competition. If things weren't going right, I would likely cut losses and try alternative routes, not spend more. So it suggests they are satisfied with the influence they're dollar buys. Presumably, they are able to clearly communicate their interests and concerns to the decision makers on Capitol Hill. Moreover, they are able to communicate these interests and concerns _behind closed doors_ to receptive members of _both parties._
Perhaps my thinking is faulty, but to me, it seems like they're winning, i.e. influencing policy in their favor.
> Either minorities are getting neglected, or they are being abused as lab subjects.
Can you explain why these are the only two options?
[0] https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i
[1] http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/3...