Government not placing requirements around grant money (with regards to the potential final product) is on the government to be sure. I don't know if the Singap

Government not placing requirements around grant money (with regards to the potential final product) is on the government to be sure. I don't know if the Singapore model is appropriate, or perhaps requirements around maximum allowable profit margins on drugs created in-part with government grants, but one or the other would at least be honest. No patents is a bit harsh, but short-run patents aren't. But let's be clear about generics - the global generics marketplace is closing in on $500B/year [0], so again, I rather flippantly dismiss any and all cries of "without 20 year patents we wouldn't get any new drugs!" Making generics is still rather expensive, and the market is incredibly large. I don't know about doing away with patent protections completely, but 20 years (yes I know that includes testing, but companies can apply for a patent extension) is outlandish, and stops so many people globally from getting access to drugs in the name of profiteering. In fact, it's gotten so ridiculous that countries - including one of the largest emerging markets in the world, India - are just ignoring US patents and developing generics. When countries start risking international trade ties with the US over drug patents and access to life-saving treatments for 3rd-world markets, something is amiss. As for other first-world (and large 3rd-world) countries chipping in for FDA testing, I imagine they would, if a US-based company was not then granted a price-gouging monopoly over that research worldwide. That doesn't appear to be an option you mention. [0] http://www.bccresearch.com/market-research/pharmaceuticals/generic-drugs-markets-phm009g.html http://www.bccresearch.com/market-research/pharmaceuticals/g...