3 ms·

What about it? There's no reason it couldn't be publicly funded.

• ethbr1 2y ago
  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.
  • thfuran 2y ago
    "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.
    • ethbr1 2y ago
      You're reading a lot that I didn't write into what I did write. Do you think a government-administrated drug development program would be more efficient than private industry?