Major breakthroughs in medicine , such as treatments for HIV, Hepatitis C, and COVID-19, offer the greatest empowerment to disease-stricken patients who are now able to free themselves of dreadful outcomes from various diseases. Indeed, the ultimate empowerment of a patient with a disease is to make him disease-free. In a capitalist economy, rewarding the people who generate these improvements is essential.

The source of this empowerment, of course, comes from the science that underlies medical innovation. But many politicians argue that the science is hurt by the heartless operations of profit-making institutions. This is backward logic, and while it might help politicos score points in Washington, it will ultimately hurt patients in need.

Washington, however, is far from the only guilty party. Many academic researchers similarly shun for-profit firms, assuming they are only interested in earnings and are thus enemies of real science. Government agency committees such as those at the National Institutes of Health rarely grant opportunities to for-profit industry representatives because they are viewed as impure in their motives, even though they are in the noble business of extending the lives of their customers. Most academic journals regulate such conflicts extensively to a point that it is sometimes impossible to fund good research through for-profit firms.

This occurs despite the fact that the results of for-profit-funded science research are reported transparently and can be replicated by peers in peer-reviewed research so that the research can be assessed without regards to the source of funding. No car buyers find the debt-equity ratio of the carmaker important because the quality of the car can be evaluated in itself. Much of science can be, too, especially theoretical science or empirical science based on random assignment. Unless there is fraud, the results speak for themselves — regardless of the financing.

In contrast to for-profit science, a lack of profit motive often slows down the science. A primary example is the lack of knowledge around the impact of natural immunity of COVID. Many in the medical community were frustrated that we knew less about natural immunity than we did about the immunity confirmed by vaccines. The difference was that natural immunity cannot be sold, but vaccines and treatments can be. The difference in medical knowledge surrounding natural immunity versus vaccines illustrates the large social gains from profits pushing science rapidly.

This is indicative of a larger property rights issue. Because the vaccines and treatments can be patented, it gives an incentive to generate evidence on the benefits of the product that can only be used by the firm marketing it. If patents or property rights are not present, no one would invest millions in research and clinical trials that, if successful, could be used by competitors for marketing without any outlays on the science.

In contrast, no one can sell natural immunity, so no one has an incentive to invest in the evidence showing its value. Because natural immunity, as opposed to immunity from vaccines , is not owned by anyone, there is no profit motive to generate evidence on its consequences. Hence, the science on important aspects of the impact of natural immunity is slowed down due to lack of property rights and profits.

This is a much more general problem that also applies to natural remedies for diseases, such as vitamins or herbs. These remedies cannot be patented because nature, and not man, invented them. As a consequence, the evidence on their effectiveness in treating diseases is severely limited compared to medical products such as drugs, biologics, or devices. The public sector could, in principle, fund such research on natural remedies, but to date, the money poured into it is minuscule compared to patentable medical products.

The research community is misguided by not trusting Adam Smith’s invisible hand — a lack of trust that leads to a lack of science and better knowledge, and thus hurts patients. If health is valued more than anything else, the highest financial rewards should go to those who improve our health. Policies should aim to raise the rewards and profits from better medical science, not lower them.

Tomas J. Philipson is an economist at the University of Chicago and served as member and acting chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2017 to 2020.