[Zigurd]

Lots of research in the US is university and government lab-based. Even if private sector drug development were cut back, it would not end useful drug development. I suspect the way government and university research is monetized could be improved so that more competition would exist.

[rayiner]

Let's say we shut down Silicon Valley and had the government do computer research. You think that would be efficient and effective?

At the end of the day, you need to give smart people a reason to make their lives' work saving lives instead of selling financial products or advertising algorithms. That's not going to happen if going into drug development means topping out at GS-15 in a government lab.

[Zigurd]

Let's say we stopped exclusive licensing for government funded research. Then, when commercialized, drugs would be available from multiple competing sources. Or the IP could be set free, for generics manufacturers to pick up.

Maximizing rent-seeking doesn't seem like the wisest course of action.

[Daishiman]

How funny that you mention that, given that the Internet, the very backbone upon so much of the economy moves around, started and developmed mostly as... a military project. Supported by universities and public research.

[maxerickson]

The market paid Cisco and the like to develop the ever advancing hardware that powers the internet as it exists today.

[Daishiman]

Sure they did, because corporations are much better at iterative product improvements than at radical, high-risk research projects with no short-term returns. So?

[refurb]

Please list all of the drugs that public money has brought all the way to market. It's not that long.