By NextBestFitGovernment chooses which research gets funded
Publicly funded R&D or prizes put research priorities in government hands, which may underfund risky ideas or be swayed by politics.
Who's affected
- Medical researchers and research institutions: Government priorities may leave risky or politically disfavored research unfunded.
- People with ongoing or specialist care needs: People with rare conditions can lose research support for needed treatments.
- Medical researchers and research institutions: Well-connected institutions can benefit from politically influenced research funding.
Under your mix of paths
- Centralized funding decisions
Open questions
- Who should set research priorities, and how much should remain private?
Caused or worsened by these paths
This problem only matters if one of these paths is chosen.
Expanded public research funding puts the selection of research priorities in government hands.
Government defines which drug-development goals qualify for prizes or guaranteed purchases.
Directing negotiation savings to public research puts the choice of research winners in government hands.
Solution paths (2)
Open a path for what it fixes, what it creates or worsens, who gains and who loses, precedents, and how it connects to other paths. See all paths as a decision tree.
Keep funding decisions with scientific peer review, with a fixed share for high-risk research.
- +Government chooses which research gets funded
- −Slower access to new drugs and technology
- −Takes years, or money up front, before it pays off
Public funds go only to areas private R&D neglects (antibiotics, rare diseases).
- +Government chooses which research gets funded
- −U.S. prices are far higher than in other countries
- −Depends on uncertain evidence or judgments