Possibly a Correct Use of a Metaphor

I can just about let this reference to the invisible hand through on the ground that it is almost akin to Smith’s original (and only usage) of the metaphor in Wealth of Nations.

A new synthetic drug at great expense has entered the market, which promises good returns if it is adopted. So far it is not doing as well as envisaged but if they stick with it and usage picks up, for the drug and similar synthetics, the gains to the sector (and Roche in particular) from lower production costs using the new method generally will be good, and for patients the eventual costs will be lower than the previous drug processes.

In seeking their own gains, Roche causes changes from which other producers and users will benefit. The wider benefits were not part of Roche’s intentions, though the consequences of wider adoption of the process may have been noted beforehand and not excluded.

“Fuzeon’s Fallout” by Derek Lowe in Corante: In the Pipeline (19 July) :

“Another two or three years should do it, if nothing better comes along to cut into Fuzeon sales. And stipulating that (which is no sure bet) Roche might be selling it for a long time to come, since the barrier to generic manufacture is going to be rather high. So, even after that wild factory in Colorado, they're still probably going to go into the black on Fuzeon, but it does make you wonder how the return compares to some of the other drugs in Roche's portfolio.But that's their problem.

In the meantime, it looks like they've helped everyone else in the business by making industrial peptide synthesis more affordable. Adam Smith's invisible hand strikes again. . .”