For this assignment, we're going to do things a bit differently. You're going to craft a memo to the board.

Imagine you're a manager at Merck and one of your researchers has just informed you about the the possibility of using a drug to treat river blindness. Your company just developed a successful drug to treat heartworm in pets and livestock and the researcher thinks that another version of the drug could be developed to combat infectious parasites in humans.

However, the development of the drug might take 10 years and could cost over $100 million in R&D expenses. You know that the drug is targeted towards a population that will not be able to pay.

You will need to invest significantly in infrastructure in order to successfully distribute the drug and treat patients.

You could spend the $100 million on another important, lifesaving drug for which there is a profitable market.

The assignment is as follows:

1. Your job is to craft a memo to Merck's board of directors outlining your position.

2. Develop solid, logical arguments for your course of action. Think back to the Friedman article for possible points or counterpoints.

3. Justify your decision using one of the ethical frameworks discussed in BUSN 3500 (you may need to look back at the course materials for a refresher).

After you have submitted your work, everyone will be assigned two memos two review. For each memo you need to put yourself in shoes of the board of directors and assess their argument. Based on what you read, would you agree to the course of action proposed by management?