[anyfactor]

This is very interesting. On a tangential note about Shkreli. I took a break and I remembered in the Facebook senate hearing a senator said to Zuck, "Who elected you to make decisions about what stays on the internet and what doesn't?" . This is tangentially related in the matters of Shkreli. Why it would be ethical for Shkreli to take this "moral burden" of doing the right thing and invest in innovation by essentially indirectly taking money from taxpayers? I am using the word ethical because the US government doesn't think price gouging illegal. He is nobody's champion and surely he is not elected. It is a very interesting idea.

I guess for decisions about pharma research like this having an elected body or representation of an elected body is a good thing.

[mrjangles]

The answer should be obvious. Countries that do use "democratic" means to decide these things produce absolutely nothing of value. Countries that let people vote with their wallet (rather than ideology) have produced just about every important medical breakthrough in the last 50 years.

In the USA the best of the best are put in charge of tomorrows medicine, and that is why they succeed while the rest of the world is just pitiful in comparison.