I think you're right for a reasoned debate we need to understand each sides view. I don't like the IPR outcome in private health research, and I think the conflation of real-world dollar value with social value in health is a giant mistake. But it would be naieve to think money is not a giant motivating factor in things like the emergence of mRNA solutions, or the semaglutide type drugs.
Novo Nordisk became (briefly) the largest component of the Danish balance of payments for a while there.
So in that sense, I agree with the headline position Reason argues for here. Research will happen, and we won't "fall off a cliff" in terms of outcome. But the other side, the relationship of public health benefits and public goods, and the access to healthy long lives by everyone worldwide has now been tied up in IPR, and will depend on the benificence of the IPR holder, not outcomes of state funded research which become public goods in the wider sense. In time of course, this solves. There is a strong element of belief that "in time" applies to IPR and means we all get free disney in 300 years, hurrah: I don't personally find this very compelling.
I think the idea "money backs winners" is highly risky in health because what emerges is "money backs money making winners" -we don't get 1c per day cures for diabetes, we get $1000 per week cures. Money does not like solving underlying public health problems for a cheap solution: why would you do that to money?
Novo Nordisk became (briefly) the largest component of the Danish balance of payments for a while there.
So in that sense, I agree with the headline position Reason argues for here. Research will happen, and we won't "fall off a cliff" in terms of outcome. But the other side, the relationship of public health benefits and public goods, and the access to healthy long lives by everyone worldwide has now been tied up in IPR, and will depend on the benificence of the IPR holder, not outcomes of state funded research which become public goods in the wider sense. In time of course, this solves. There is a strong element of belief that "in time" applies to IPR and means we all get free disney in 300 years, hurrah: I don't personally find this very compelling.
I think the idea "money backs winners" is highly risky in health because what emerges is "money backs money making winners" -we don't get 1c per day cures for diabetes, we get $1000 per week cures. Money does not like solving underlying public health problems for a cheap solution: why would you do that to money?