>> we would not have nearly as much innovation in medicine without a profit motive
> Most economists? That feels like a claim in need of a citation
The usual best place for finding out what economists think is the IGM Economics Experts Panel[1]. I mention it because it's a great resource to be aware of, but they haven't addressed this question, though it's covered in textbooks. I checked the Mankiw textbook on Principles of Microeconomics[2], which if I'm not mistaken is the world's most popular one. In the introduction, it says that people tend to supply things when the returns are high:
"Incentives are crucial to analyzing how markets work. For example, when the price of an apple rises, people decide to eat fewer apples. At the same time, apple orchards decide to hire more workers and harvest more apples. In other words, a higher price in a market provides an incentive for buyers to consume less and an incentive for sellers to produce more. As we will see, the influence of prices on the behavior of consumers and producers is crucial for how a market economy allocates scarce resources."
That becomes a background assumption for discussion of incentives in the rest of the book. For example, when talking about externalities, it notes that the patent system increases the incentive to innovate:
"Research into new technologies provides a positive externality because it creates knowledge that other people can use. Because inventors cannot capture the full benefits of their inventions, they tend to devote too few resources to research. The federal government addresses this problem partially through the patent system, which gives inventors exclusive use of their inventions for a limited time."
Most economists? That feels like a claim in need of a citation, or revision.
Most economists aren’t medical doctors or pharmaceutical researchers.
How many of the most useful medical breakthroughs were government funded?