Not sure how you verify that claim. When you consider how much is spent just in the lab I’d bet a small % of overall R&D is spent on what you are suggesting. You may or may not know but every new indication for a drug has to have new studies that back up the use for that indication. That’s the FDA requirement. I will be the first to say Pharma spends way too much on advertising!
The Federal Aid Highway Act which created the US Freeway system. Or how about the Vaccine for Children (VCF) initiative?
what typically works best is a combination. The government often isn’t best at execution and implementation of getting things to market. The private sector isn’t usually as good as government at pure research, before there is a clear path to profitability. Many examples, like the internet, GPS, lasik eye surgery, etc come from government funded research via the Dept of Defense, NASA, DARPA, etc.
This is mostly true. Private concerns have the issue with needing to make money to pay salaries etc and often can’t overcome long timelines. I say mostly true in the example of pharma dozens and dozens of companies have spent decades trying to find a new drug to modify the course of Alzheimer’s. Hundreds of failures, now two new disease modifying therapies have come to market. I’ve run a few NIH funded trials, they are over wrought with numerous extra steps, extra procedures and rules that have little to do with finding out if a drug is safe or effective.