It could be... but do you really want a massive amount of public funds thrown at low-probability of success endeavors, guided by government efficiency?
Say what you want about the downsides to the current pharma development model, but those companies are highly incentivized to be as efficient with their pipeline spend as they can. And they're pretty damn good at it.
In contrast, if you use government-selected allocation, you'd turn pharma development into military procurement.
The more reasonable approach would be to enter cost-sharing agreements, where the government paid for a share of critical stages, in return for getting certain rights if the drugs were successful.
"Government efficiency" isn't the slur you seem to think. Many parts of the government are administered quite efficiently. And many large companies are not.
Say what you want about the downsides to the current pharma development model, but those companies are highly incentivized to be as efficient with their pipeline spend as they can. And they're pretty damn good at it.
In contrast, if you use government-selected allocation, you'd turn pharma development into military procurement.
The more reasonable approach would be to enter cost-sharing agreements, where the government paid for a share of critical stages, in return for getting certain rights if the drugs were successful.