Notice I was sure to include ‘revival of corporate R & D divisions’ in the argument? Bell Labs is the archetype - if corporations can do a better job of applied R & D, let them. If corporations are upset about publicly funded research generating open-source discoveries that upset the monopolistic apple cart, that’s not an argument about improving efficiency - that’s an argument about maximizing profits and investor return, not for efficient new drug discovery or old drug repurposing.

The real question is, what is the metric of ‘success’ - improved public health for the entire population at low cost, or bloated returns for pharmaceutical investors?

> The real question is, what is the metric of ‘success’ - improved public health for the entire population at low cost, or bloated returns for pharmaceutical investors?

This is a false dichotomy and this kind of zero sum thinking is exactly the root of so much misunderstanding of economics that's all the rage these days (and probably forever).

Wealth is created by innovation, not transfered. "Rent seeking" is wealth transfer but most companies provide a service that is more valuable than what exists without them.

The goal of capitalism is to allow the capitalist to increase their profits by improving the public good. "Public good" being measured by what people are willing to spend their money on. It isn't to increase the capatalists profits at all costs. The entire idea is built on exploiting the capitalist's impulse to increase profits to also serve the public good.