Why not? If I am rich enough to have my pick of the best researchers and doctors, and to divert their attention to a disease or condition of my choosing, then shouldn't there be some oversight of that?
Perhaps all that money could have been better spent on malaria or cancer, rather than a rarer condition.
I don't know why an arbitrary rich individual should be able to direct medicinal research better than a public body, and get the most benefit for humanity or, at a lower level, their fellow citizens,
You, and the parent of my comment, are not backing up your arguments.
I posted a reasoned comment which does not worship the power of private enterprise, and asserts that the public sphere is better at some things than private wealth.
This is not an outrageous and thoughtless idea, and it is not one that deserves a downvote simply for being expressed.
Many enterprises in history have been organized by governments instead of wealthy capitalists. It is not unacceptable to suggest that medical research is one of those areas that could be done better in this way.
Surely the inverse slope - "rich people should be allowed to spend arbitrary amounts of money on things that markedly affect the direction of society solely out of self-interest without any oversight" - is equally slippery?
Why not? If I am rich enough to have my pick of the best researchers and doctors, and to divert their attention to a disease or condition of my choosing, then shouldn't there be some oversight of that?
Perhaps all that money could have been better spent on malaria or cancer, rather than a rarer condition.
I don't know why an arbitrary rich individual should be able to direct medicinal research better than a public body, and get the most benefit for humanity or, at a lower level, their fellow citizens,