This was not intended as an attack on you - you seem by all definitions to be a rational actor. I was I guess raising my hands to the sky and declaiming why our society (IRS included) is arranging the economics of your choices such that instead of getting an opportunity to make anti-cancer drugs one step closer to reality and available to the worlds poorest (presumably a benefit of the IP free nature) we get people who are rich enough to afford a night out, a smartphone, a cab and a home to be taken to.

So "we" (not you) have contrived a situation where we look after pissed marketing execs in the short term but block the potential chance of life saving, cheap pharma.

Like I said nothing against you or your choices, just that I see our society advancing only on scientific progress - a progress that is slow and uncertain, and all we really know about it is that the more scientists we have working away at the mines the more likely we are to trip over the lucky penicillin discovery.

So if we spend a considerable amount training you to be capable of the biochemistry and organisational skills needed for your charity and then fail to capitalise on that investment it shows something wrong in our accounting methods as a society.

Would love to hear more about the drugs / science involved