A free market promises that effectual demand will ***eventually*** be met with profitable supply. Whether the eventuality is realized quickly or slowly is up to the reality of productivity in the economy. In the case of communicable diseases however, especially those which cause non-trivial damage to the body quickly enough to outstrip the pace of research/production to treat them, it may be justifiable for the government to step in and impose measures to contain the spread of the disease/pestilence/biohazard to ensure that the non-trivial damage caused by the disease is not inflicted on new individuals who would otherwise have been spared.
We cannot make nature subject to our human laws and command it to stop inflicting disease on humans. But we can issue laws to human beings and hold them accountable for introducing new diseases. We already deal with nature's impositions everyday. We do not need to also be battling against humans synthesizing new diseases and introducing them into the population.
Research into and experimentation with disease (both biological and digital) may need to be declared to and registered with the government and forced to be open processes, and the equipment required to carry out such activities may need to be controlled as part of `SovCBIO` law.
Natures owners must prove ability to front certain capital reserves for keeping up to date with SovCBio law, at point of purchase and anytime thereafter or they lose title after a 3 month grace period if not satisfied within that time. It is acceptable to use loans to satisfy this reserve requirement, or it may be a joint contribution satisfied by the owner and tenants, etc. This is similar to the incompensable harms lawsuits for actions, except applied to SovCBio, and it has to do with future ability to comply with legislation rather than future ability to compensate harms. In a sense it's like an uncollected tax - the tax remains under the stewardship of the owner and is unspent.
