Either approach would be an improvement to current format. My only issue, and I'm rather layman on this, is I don't think academia creates solutions. They gener

Either approach would be an improvement to current format. My only issue, and I'm rather layman on this, is I don't think academia creates solutions. They generate ideas and the pharma has to figure out all the parts to manufacture/commercialize it. I'd think that process could be more seamless. Right now, I think academia may touch on Z but if there's no $ it just dies in academia and that's a shame. I also tend to agree that we should be solving problems that affect folks the most and factoring for the magnitude of the issue which is what QALY seems to do to gauge impact, so I like that idea. However, in doing so, I expect you're casting a larger net and bound to stumble on something that serves a smaller market as a byproduct of the R&D. In the current reality, the byproduct would get shelved and never commercialized because it had no ROI, which is also a shame.