Dinakar Singh

And I think whether it's government or whether it's institutions like JAX, there is a role here to be played that could be pretty thoughtful where a few diseases are picked at a time.

And a modest amount of money is put in or coordinated so that you actually end up having a game plan.

Because what a lot of people just need is a game plan as opposed to handing money out randomly.

And also a third party who that's viewed as being somewhat neutral because academics are great people, but man, they don't like collaborating that much.

And companies really don't like collaborating with each other because it's an IP problem.

And

companies and universities actually now are having more difficulty collaborating because universities want IP because they've seen the money you can get from royalties and stuff like that.

So having a third party that's sort of Switzerland and can be a bit of an honest broker on this stuff is actually pretty important.

So that's my hope, finding a way to have a more thoughtful process so that people don't have to go and try and figure out how to go and see if there's something there.

Now, on the back end,

Boy, I mean, it's good that people care about their disease, but the cost of this stuff is insane.

I mean, what companies are charging is just nuts.

I wish when we had put all the money in, we had put in restrictions on what companies could eventually charge, because a million to two million bucks a year is bonkers.

I'll give you a funny example of it.

I remember talking to the people at Columbia when the first drug was coming out, and they

It actually was a working capital problem that had to bring their CFO in because since Columbia was a major center, it could fill in Harvard or Stanford or whatever as well.

The SMA drug costs $800,000 a year, the first one.

And so to go and actually buy the doses to treat the kids would have cost tens of millions of dollars that they didn't have their budget.

It's crazy.

It's a real issue.