Do you think it makes sense that every taxpayer should pay for such expensive betting with really low success rate?

I'm thinking of it like insurance. If you spread risk out among a lot of people, everyone contributes a little so a few unlucky people aren't ruined by illness. Drug companies are passing this burden of this low success rate to customers already by increasing drug prices on medications that do make it to market. Instead of just the patients who need drug W being forced to pay for failed drugs X, Y, and Z too, everyone helps out.

In addition, failed drugs weren't a blunder. Promising drugs require investment to ensure safety and efficacy. It's pretty much impossible to make the process of screening drug candidates perfectly efficient because sometimes the danger isn't realized until the drug reaches clinical trials and people have been on it for a while, at which point, the majority of the money required to develop the medication has already been lost. It wasn't bad science or mismanaged resources, it was a good faith effort that didn't pan out. And the research for one drug can help provide breakthroughs or knowledge for others.

Considering that no one is invulnerable to disease, every medical breakthrough has a chance to help you with some condition you could have now or might develop in the future. Until we completely thwart death and disease, every single person that has a will to live as long as they can has a stake in medical research. So yes, I do believe it is fair for every tax payer to invest in their own health.

It's unfortunate for the people who might happen to need such drug at the protection time but in the long run, the world will eventually have that new drug with significantly lower price of generics.

For my response to the first part of this sentence, see above regarding spreading out risk. About generics though, we still have companies like Turing (using it as an example because of current notoriety) that are charging exorbitant prices for generics. The typically do this with drugs that are only useful to small populations of people who have a serious, but rare condition.

Rare conditions are nice for pharmaceutical companies if they can corner the market. It is much easier to force out competition and effect a pseudo-monopoly. Then the company can set prices wherever they want because they are the only option for treatment for whatever the condition might be. The smaller the population that benefits and the more fatal the disease, the more the company can charge.

One of the goals of my plan is to eliminate this by setting prices legally to ensure that drugs are made as available as they can be. Not everyone will benefit from every drug, but if someone can benefit from a treatment, money should not be the reason they cannot utilize it.

As a postscript, I'd like to say that this was my first contribution to this subreddit and I am very pleased with the environment here. It is much more civil and logical than any other political discussion forum I've ever been a part of. Thank you.