>I'm glad that this works and that there is another, more convenient and effective treatment option. But shouldn't we have some setup where if tax dollars pay for the research, the government should own a share of the IP commensurate with their funding level, and should then be able to have some say in pricing?
>Or, if you think that the government itself shouldn't own IP for a product on the market, can we create an independent non-profit which receives ownership, and whose charter aligns with actually treating as many people as possible?
The current model of government funded research is like backing a Kickstarter because you want to see the product made, but get no direct benefit. It is made because we as a people think the world will be better off with the product, than without, and are willing to pay to make that happen.
I think government co-venture is also great option, as long as it is negotiated up front and we can keep political corruption out of it. However, the question then becomes if drug development will dry up once the the government has locked down all the IP and nobody wants to partner with them.
I think another good model would be seed support for independent non-profit pharmaceutical(s) charted to balance reinvested profits with social benefit (without government owning the IP). The question and risk here becomes one of oversight and accountability.