[zozbot234]

> We already have tens of thousands of bright scientists who work on drugs where the patents go to the corporations, not for those who actually did the research anyway.

That's because corporations do the part of drug research that actually matters, viz. translational research and safety/effectiveness studies. And it would be just as expensive if non-profits were doing it, so talking about "profits" is just not relevant.

[ska]

Both parts matter, but you are right it wouldn't be significantly cheaper to do the transnational and regulatory stuff publicly or by non-profits.

What probably would change is the choices on which conditions and drugs to target, and to what degree. Conceivably could shift from an ability-to-pay focus to an impact focus.

Exercise left to the reader to decide if that would be desirable and/or likely to be more successful overall.

[Sawamara]

I am mostly countering the libertarian "innovative hero" talking point that paints progress as an inherent part of profit-driven late stage capitalism.

Humans are cooperative by nature. We would have scientists even under different production systems. Therefore, I think it is a default failure state to just hope for heroes to emerge. Obama was portrayed as such, and he failed to tackle most of US's pressing social issues.