As far as drugs are concerned, this is simply not true, not even close. I believe the actual fraction of new drug approvals developed by academic research (including national labs) is more like 20%.
Pharma can afford the trials. The molecules are developed by research funding. There isn't anything _special_ about pharma vs public research. They all employ the same folks.
Also incorrect. The underlying scientific knowledge driving new therapies is overwhelmingly academic in origin, but academic research does very little actual drug discovery. I think the practice of university PR departments writing stories like "university professor discovers new cancer treatment" every time someone finds an effective in-vitro inhibitor has contributed to the confusion; most of these "drugs" never make it out of trials. Even for major advances like immuno-oncology and CRISPR that originated in academic labs, it takes many years of development (and hundreds of millions of dollars in private funding), most of which will not result in breathless press releases.
There are many good arguments for changing the incentives and IP laws involved in biomedical science, but "academic labs will pick up the slack" is not one of them, and fundamentally misunderstands what academic institutions do well (or poorly).
By your own admission, the number is quite high. I am talking about capabilities that can be enhanced. Not the ways things currently are. Nothing precludes the NiH funding drug discovery and manufacture.
Same folks that historically develop most drugs and health advances, academic and national research labs.
These kinds of questions always have this undercurrent that capitalism+pharmaco is the answer to everything. I am not going to litter this with hedges, but to prescribe that solutions need to be solved a certain way is manipulative.
https://www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/frederick-...