I think we discussed this previously on LW. In general the argument isn't convincing in his case.
Gilead made 20$ billion with a drug that cures one virus. If a pharma company would think that his approach has a 10% of working to cure all viruses spending 100$ million or more would be very interesting for traditional pharma companies under the current incentive scheme.
Someone did a article about creating a Kickstarter that actually issued shares in a company if they went over big.
If it was a tax deduction if it failed, but allowed for a gain, then it might be a way to do projects that were popular with people, but not attractive to Big Pharma or VC.
You could even have "Hackerspaces" that brought together teams just to do projects. If they included housing, it would be a great way to give postdocs some work, and some visibility while they wait to get into a static lab.