Awww Spin, it's the ultimate in vertical integration, my man! Maintain that market share -- literally! I dunno. I think it kind of appeals to me. (In a woefully misbegotten sort of way, of course!) The article doesn't read like some sort of "we'll buy this and bury the results (like the oft-running hoax of some oil company buying up the rights to a 150 MPG carburetor so they can prevent it's manufacture)" -- it reads as a "DOH! - the longer we keep smokey joe alive - the more money we make - if we allocate 3% to research we'll recover 11% in prolonged revenue!". Which is better or more 'moral'? An industry that spends 50 years sticking their head in the sand - denying and attacking any evidence that smoking causes lung cancer ... or an industry that might spend the next 50 years researching drugs and techniques to prevent lung cancer - EVEN IF the only reason they do so is to make more money off smokers? I may not have the answer to the question I just posed, but I'm pretty sure of two things; (1) this industry has some seriously deep pockets, and (2) research often leads to 'secondary' findings that often have very valuable applications. RonL. [... wondering if he should raise the old issue of the 'morality' of military funding for university level research (in any number of fields)] -----Original Message----- From: spinhead [mailto:evolt at spinhead.com] Subject: Re: [thechat] pure evil: Tobacco giant buys rights to lung cancer drugs This is infinitely more distressing than whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly. I'm really puzzled that anyone has moral capacities limited enough that they could do this.