As a stance for the Overton Window, I wouldn't be opposed to this. In the extreme case (eg this passed), it might not be too bad (I'm not convinced of that, but I can see the arguments). In the sliding window case, we get a reduction in the outrageousness of current IP laws, which I know would be a good thing.
If that actually happened, there would be much less incentive to find new cures and vaccines. Companies spend millions and millions of dollars on risk (research) for the promise of owning the formula for a time.
Research funding could be socialized, I suppose. Or the patent monopoly period could be reduced. Or medical patents could get an exception of some kind.
But these are all suggestions that should be coming from Congress and from lobbyists while they're negotiating the terms of the deal, so they feel like they've accomplished some level of "damage control." Meanwhile they've wasted a lot of energy inching away from the ideal/extremist proposal and towards the compromise we actually want.
I don't see a whole lot of difference between the BSD and Apache licenses and just putting software in the public domain. And maybe also tacking on a SHOUTY ALL-UPPERCASE DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY so you don't get sued for not having a shouty all-uppercase disclaimer of liability.
The GPL does have some extra requirements, in the form of source code sharing requirements for derivative works, but judging by how many people use more permissive open-source licenses, the difference here seems to be pretty slight in practice.
Reverse engineering would be a lot less of a pain without the clean room requirement, so I'm not worried about that.
Anyway it's a pony suggestion, not a serious proposal for a law. What I'd actually like to see is reduction of copyright/patent terms, abolition of certain patent types, expansion of fair use boundaries, and explicit rules for determining fair use without going to court.
