OK upon re-reading I'm not entirely right. But they do say "potential developers", so clearly the intent is to subsidize drugs that are in development, supplanting or supplementing private financing.
What I am really interested in is understanding whether any of this is coercive, in the spirit of national interest. It does not appear to be. A truly promising drug of such potential impact is going to find private financing, especially in this era of cheap risk capital hunting for yield (thank the Fed). That describes Brilacidin, by all evidence. So I do not want the government even semi-nationalizing private property where there is no market failure or impediment to public use - whether it is our compounds or anyone else's.
I'm not ringing alarm bells or saying that is what's happening, I'm just staying wary. Government can have the nicest of intentions and screw things up or over-reach nonetheless.
If they just want to subsidize development of promising strategic technologies or stockpile production for contingencies, that's a lesser evil.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
