You keep using the words 'fair' and 'reasonable'. I don't think they mean what you think they mean. For example, in real estate 'fair market price' is defined as the price a willing buyer will give a willing seller and yes, it does fluctuate with market conditions.

To keep with your example. Someone comes up with a cure for cancer (or AIDS or the common cold even) and says "I think fair market price on this is 10,000$ a dose." How many people will be shut out of that cure? Most, I'm thinking, because they can't pay for it and insurance sure isn't going to cover it.

>Again, I don’t think some government bureaucrat should say what is fair and reasonable and what is not (my take on it is that they, the government bureaucrats, get one dollar is already unfair and unreasonable <g>). As far as “government” giving money for the research, they give yours and mine money (not theirs) and all they care is that for this money they either get votes so they can keep their seats. Or they get money back so that they can buy votes of other people. What does Biden, Obama, and Boehner (for that matter) know about where research funds should be spent (there is an interesting chapter in the book Republic, Lost by Lawrence Lessig that describes how moneys are given to universities).
>
>But I see your point so let’s compromise. When a pharma (if they take public funds for research) start selling their drugs (note they have a patent, so your road construction example does not work) and make money, they have to pay back (with interest) for every dollar of public money they had received. But it is their decision what to charge so that if they make huge profits (after paying back), it is fine with me. Are we in agreement? <g>.

I bet you also think that CEO's are worth 150 times their average employee, as far as salaries go.