Recent Posts
Nice strawman. No one is talking about nationalizing pharma. Did anyone even hint at something like that here ?
I skimmed this paragraph,
"So on one hand we have an unproductive big pharma which is cash rich, and on the other a cash-poor university system that has produced fistfuls of Nobel prizewinners. The way forward is obvious: inject the money into university research."coupled with this one,
"Now is the time for government action. Big pharma is international, so measures would ideally have to be taken by the European Commission at the pan-European level, by the federal government in the US or as a joint initiative."
And read the first five or seven words of this,
"Nationalisation, or internationalisation, of the $150bn cash mountain of the top 20 companies is probably unthinkable. However, the tax system could at least" before I was interrupted by something;
and, riffing off of the tone within as well as the "best parts of socialism," from the thread title, made a few conclusions.
Yes, though, I do believe it is not too far out in left field to say that there's some pretty big hints there.
Though I guess "reading between the lines" isn't exactly a quantitative discipline, so carry on...
Do you have private for profit pharmaceutical research and development coupled with vigorous protection of intellectual property in Brazil? I'm not under that impression.
If that were the case (presuming that it isn't) wouldn't it stand to reason that more private R&D assets would gravitate to tropical disease cures?
I can't speak for brazil on those subjects, what what i can happily point out is this, even where 'private for profit pharmaceutical research and development coupled with vigorous protection of intellectual property' exists, tropical disease treatment research is virtually non-existant in the private sector. Despite malaria being a massive global problem, about the only thing that looks likely to incentivise the production of a new anti-malaria drug is america, Nato or china having to fight a major war in a malaria prone region. Why, because the return on research isn't high enough, because the areas where it occures are to poor to offer the pharma companies and incentive to product a drug.
You make compelling arguments for curiosity based research or pure science, but I remain skeptical that government is a just and logical way to pursue it.I'm also opposed to having the taxpayer do the heavy lifting on the basic science so that government can then select the corporate winners and losers who benefit from it.
Please then, if you believe that taxation is the wrong way to achieve increases in basic research, suggest other approachs. I will be happy explain why they are either less fair, ineffective or doomed to failure.
Wealth is really just an expression of societies combined effort. I tend to think that it makes sense that the society should try to achieve the greatest benifit for the least effort, that society should attempt to be efficient in achieving its goals. Wealth is pointless, save as a way to solve problems, or to gain ones desires. I think on a moral levels, solving problems is of greater importance than gaining ones desires.
Given that in some specific circumstances socialised approachs are more efficient than none socialised approachs(see relative costs and effectiveness of british verses americian healthcare), i think sometimes it is moral to take money from where it is being used in efficiently and apply it to solving the problem in a more efficient manner.
I would rather not state an opinion on this specific case, as i do not know enough about the ins and outs of pharmacutical companies.
If we are using wealth and property synonymously then we have arrived at the customary socialist versus libertarian impasse. I disagree that the government has the right to initiate violence against private property to pursue some perceived advantage of statist or socialist approaches.
All that remains to debate would be the relative advantage of government or other collectivist approaches versus the free market although I have no issue with voluntary philanthropy.
Do you have private for profit pharmaceutical research and development coupled with vigorous protection of intellectual property in Brazil? I'm not under that impression.
If that were the case (presuming that it isn't) wouldn't it stand to reason that more private R&D assets would gravitate to tropical disease cures?
I can't speak for brazil on those subjects, what what i can happily point out is this, even where 'private for profit pharmaceutical research and development coupled with vigorous protection of intellectual property' exists, tropical disease treatment research is virtually non-existant in the private sector. Despite malaria being a massive global problem, about the only thing that looks likely to incentivise the production of a new anti-malaria drug is america, Nato or china having to fight a major war in a malaria prone region. Why, because the return on research isn't high enough, because the areas where it occures are to poor to offer the pharma companies and incentive to product a drug.
Please then, if you believe that taxation is the wrong way to achieve increases in basic research, suggest other approachs. I will be happy explain why they are either less fair, ineffective or doomed to failure.
You make compelling arguments for curiosity based research or pure science, but I remain skeptical that government is a just and logical way to pursue it.I'm also opposed to having the taxpayer do the heavy lifting on the basic science so that government can then select the corporate winners and losers who benefit from it.
I believe the private sector in America leads the way in tropical disease research. I'll look for a supporting citation.
Private R&D and philanthropy would be my non coercive alternatives.
Nice strawman. No one is talking about nationalizing pharma. Did anyone even hint at something like that here ?I skimmed this paragraph,
"So on one hand we have an unproductive big pharma which is cash rich, and on the other a cash-poor university system that has produced fistfuls of Nobel prizewinners. The way forward is obvious: inject the money into university research."coupled with this one,
"Now is the time for government action. Big pharma is international, so measures would ideally have to be taken by the European Commission at the pan-European level, by the federal government in the US or as a joint initiative."And read the first five or seven words of this,
"Nationalisation, or internationalisation, of the $150bn cash mountain of the top 20 companies is probably unthinkable. However, the tax system could at least" before I was interrupted by something;
and, riffing off of the tone within as well as the "best parts of socialism," from the thread title, made a few conclusions.
Yes, though, I do believe it is not too far out in left field to say that there's some pretty big hints there.
Though I guess "reading between the lines" isn't exactly a quantitative discipline, so carry on...
I would concur that it's unfair to call the threat of nationalization a straw man argument.
Of course I also don't believe that a government has to have total ownership or control over an industry or company for it to be nationalized. I would consider GM and much of the banking industry to be nationalized for example, so the issue may be different definitions of the term nationalize.
Though I guess "reading between the lines" isn't exactly a quantitative discipline, so carry on...
Oh Snap! You got me there, because, you know, I did say I study a "quantitative discipline", but reading context is not one, so wow, yeah you totally busted my illiterate self!
By the way, after a strawman, go for the ad hominem!
My reading comprehension skills are just fine. I would only say you are reading too much between the lines.
Of course I also don't believe that a government has to have total ownership or control over an industry or company for it to be nationalized. I would consider GM and much of the banking industry to be nationalized for example, so the issue may be different definitions of the term nationalize.
I agree this might be the reason for the confusion.
So I gather that you believe that governments have the right to force companies to spend some of their capitol on curiosity driven science directly by mandate or indirectly though taxation and policy. If so then it's just a question of relative benefit which is presumably determined by the government. Is that a fair understanding of your position?Taxation, yes. Companies themselves force people around the world to deal with the "externalities" of their production and services. It is quite reasonable to expect them to cope with some of the expenses of the communities where they thrive.
It is certainly possible to reach a compromise between all-government and no-government. Voting and mobilization are tools which allowthe population to influence, at least in theory, the government's decision regarding spending. If a country's population has no interest whatsoever in developing basic science they should show it by means of vote or other forms of democratic expression, and the government will not need to bother. If people think it makes their country better, what is the problem in having a tool to provide something, which, in other situation, would be impossible ?
So a majority of voters have right to take additional funds from drug companies to fund pure or charitable science because the private sector is basically incapable of funding it, and in a representative democracy the determination is made by the people through the government. I think most people would agree with your position. I doubt I'm going to convert you to a libertarian on this thread, so I'll see if I can address relative benefit.
Well, here's the thing, as I understand it:
the "sexy" drugs will get made and brought to market.
The "not so sexy" drugs to help the 500 people in the world with the extremely rare condition in question....have an extremely lower probability of doing so.
So giving big pharma tax incentives to inject money into the University system...big pharma's still going to want to cherry pick the research it gives to, just as (I'm assuming from anecdotal report from elsewhere) it does allready, and will continue to devote resources to ensuring it's ability to do so to the maximum extent that it possibly can.
Naturally, they'll want control of whatever they "donate" for, so I'm not sure how the "little pharma" with, it stands to reason, a "little capital" is going to compete on a more even playing field in this neo-liberal economy. If you could clear that up for me, go ahead.
Maybe a few "kinda sexy" things will get developed due to this infusion, but I think that'll leave the poor 500 people with an extremely rare condition in the same place they were in.
I'm really not certain what your run-of-the-mill University's operating budget is, much less how much cash will be injected into the system, or how exactly it would be implemented, so it's hard to speculate on the exact results of such an endeavor.
I guess the other problem you might run into is on moral or ethical grounds: that being the extent to which the university's underlying mission would be compromised by the promise of so much potential financial gain.
Though I guess "reading between the lines" isn't exactly a quantitative discipline, so carry on...
Oh Snap! You got me there, because, you know, I did say I study a "quantitative discipline", but reading context is not one, so wow, yeah you totally busted my illiterate self!
By the way, after a strawman, go for the ad hominem!
My reading comprehension skills are just fine. I would only say you are reading too much between the lines.
Well, on this one apparently my wording was confusing; I meant that I was "reading between the lines," not you.
Although i am not an expert on Physics or medicine, i would be willing to propose that NASA's work on CFC associated oozon depletion, and the subsequent ban has benifited humanity and the entire...
This is a reasonable counter point if one accepts anthropogenic CFC release as the the principal driver in Ozone fluctuation. I am skeptical of this as well as anthropogenic causality of global climate change. However, given the nature of these topics, I should probably start my own thread on them at some point. Now that I know we have a PhD in chemistry on the boards it should make for an intriguing discussion.
Let's say purely for the sake of argument that man made chemicals are changing the global environment with predictable catastrophic results.
Even a militant minarchist would allow for government (demand even) to protect private property from those predictable catastrophic results.
Does NASA then become a national defense asset which would be an explicit constitutional function of federal government? Probably so, but it's a challenging thought exercise for me. If other nations refuse to mitigate their output of such chemicals would it constitute a clear and present danger and merit a declaration of war?
I digress. In any case in the US the federal government has an explicit responsibility to resolve interstate water (and presumably other interstate natural resources like air) disputes. This presents interesting challenges to my position. How does the government achieve this with the requisite scientific knowledge and data? Who pays for this and how?
I think I'm officially rambling now, and I still have to look up the difference between the www and the internet. ;)
Well, here's the thing, as I understand it:
the "sexy" drugs will get made and brought to market.
The "not so sexy" drugs to help the 500 people in the world with the extremely rare condition in question....have an extremely lower probability of doing so.So giving big pharma tax incentives to inject money into the University system...big pharma's still going to want to cherry pick the research it gives to, just as (I'm assuming from anecdotal report from elsewhere) it does allready, and will continue to devote resources to ensuring it's ability to do so to the maximum extent that it possibly can.
Naturally, they'll want control of whatever they "donate" for, so I'm not sure how the "little pharma" with, it stands to reason, a "little capital" is going to compete on a more even playing field in this neo-liberal economy. If you could clear that up for me, go ahead.Maybe a few "kinda sexy" things will get developed due to this infusion, but I think that'll leave the poor 500 people with an extremely rare condition in the same place they were in.
I'm really not certain what your run-of-the-mill University's operating budget is, much less how much cash will be injected into the system, or how exactly it would be implemented, so it's hard to speculate on the exact results of such an endeavor.
I guess the other problem you might run into is on moral or ethical grounds: that being the extent to which the university's underlying mission would be compromised by the promise of so much potential financial gain.
I'd also like to point out that a lot of the diseases that don't get much research attention (like rare cancers for example) often receive enormous secondary benefit as a result of research on more common cancers. I assume this effect occurs in other medical research fields and practical commercial science like chemical engineering.
Wealth is really just an expression of societies combined effort. I tend to think that it makes sense that the society should try to achieve the greatest benifit for the least effort, that society should attempt to be efficient in achieving its goals. Wealth is pointless, save as a way to solve problems, or to gain ones desires. I think on a moral levels, solving problems is of greater importance than gaining ones desires.
Given that in some specific circumstances socialised approachs are more efficient than none socialised approachs(see relative costs and effectiveness of british verses americian healthcare), i think sometimes it is moral to take money from where it is being used in efficiently and apply it to solving the problem in a more efficient manner.
I would rather not state an opinion on this specific case, as i do not know enough about the ins and outs of pharmacutical companies.
If we are using wealth and property synonymously then we have arrived at the customary socialist versus libertarian impasse. I disagree that the government has the right to initiate violence against private property to pursue some perceived advantage of statist or socialist approaches.
All that remains to debate would be the relative advantage of government or other collectivist approaches versus the free market
although I have no issue with voluntary philanthropy.
Volentary philantropy is inherently unfair, as the benifits of knowledge cannot be owned.
Let me try and give and example.
We will compare two parallel worlds
One is roughly analogous to the real world, with a degree of socialism inherent in its states, every one who pays tax contributes a small amount to the developement of the total of human knowledge.
On the other hand, we have a world in which liberatarian dogma raigns supreme. In this world those who value the sciences are responcible for investing in it. Obviously, given the staggering levels of scientific illiteracy in the world and peoples general trend to behave in a manner benifits them in the short term rather than the long term, i think it safe to assume that the burden on those who are willing to donate, is markedly increased.
For the sake of arguement, levels of scientific illiteracy and wealth stay roughly the same in both worlds as ours. For the reasons discussed earlier about the inability of private enterprise to engages in basic reasearch, the choice is between philantropy and governmental funding.
Say a new physicial/biological cross discipline is developed that allows mind/machine interface technology to be developed. This technology has profound and far reaching implications for society which are as profound as those of the transistor.
Lets look at who benifits from the advancement:-
New jobs are created: Initially a great many jobs are created in applied science, as companies rush to bring products based on the new knowledge to market. New manifacturing, clerical, retail and logistical jobs are made
Who benifits : Anyone who has the knowldge and skills to get work in the field. The companies who design the goods, companies who make the goods and their components.
Who pays in the Socialist world: Every one who is in work and paying taxes. The companies who benifit from the developement.
Who pays in the libitarian world: A few inividuals at a high rate.
I was going to go through some ten or so areas that such knowledge would filter down to, and where it would provide benifit but it is very late and i need sleep. The simple take home is that every one benifits, but very few people are responcible contributing.
So here is the question, how is that system in anyway fairer than a system where the vast majority of people contribute to the benifits they will reseive? They cannot opt out of gaining the benifits, without leaving the society altogether. Given that they will benifit from it, what allows them not to contribute to it? Why should other have their liberty impinged upon, especially in what is ment to be a libitarian society, to carry the weight of those who choose not to contribute to something they will have equal benifit from?
Well, there's fair:
me and ten guys get to divide up an apple pie equally.
Then there's not so fair:
me and ten guys get to make 10 apple pies; one guy had all the ingredients and an oven so he gets 2 pies. I get 88% of a pie, but it sure beats the hell out of 1/10th of a pie.
So fair might not always be all it's cracked up to be.
Well, there's fair:
me and ten guys get to divide up an apple pie equally.Then there's not so fair:
me and ten guys get to make 10 apple pies; one guy had all the ingredients and an oven so he gets 2 pies. I get 88% of a pie, but it sure beats the hell out of 1/10th of a pie.So fair might not always be all it's cracked up to be.
Save that the reality is that in your view of the world, you and the ten guys have to actually gather up the resources to buy the oven which takes most of your life saving. And when you finally make that really nice pie, you have the share the admittedly fairly large pie with about 6 billion other people, cause they all turn up and ask for a bit and it would be rude not too.
Well, here's the thing, as I understand it:
the "sexy" drugs will get made and brought to market.
The "not so sexy" drugs to help the 500 people in the world with the extremely rare condition in question....have an extremely lower probability of doing so.
There are also these "not so sexy" drugs to help thousands and thousands who cannot pay for them.
Though I guess "reading between the lines" isn't exactly a quantitative discipline, so carry on...
Oh Snap! You got me there, because, you know, I did say I study a "quantitative discipline", but reading context is not one, so wow, yeah you totally busted my illiterate self!
By the way, after a strawman, go for the ad hominem!
My reading comprehension skills are just fine. I would only say you are reading too much between the lines.
Well, on this one apparently my wording was confusing; I meant that I was "reading between the lines," not you.
Now this was me reading too much between the lines :P I am really sorry for unnecessarily lashing out at you.
Save that the reality is that in your view of the world, you and the ten guys have to actually gather up the resources to buy the oven which takes most of your life saving. And when you finally make that really nice pie, you have the share the admittedly fairly large pie with about 6 billion other people, cause they all turn up and ask for a bit and it would be rude not too.Well, there's fair:
me and ten guys get to divide up an apple pie equally.Then there's not so fair:
me and ten guys get to make 10 apple pies; one guy had all the ingredients and an oven so he gets 2 pies. I get 88% of a pie, but it sure beats the hell out of 1/10th of a pie.So fair might not always be all it's cracked up to be.
I'll give em a shovel.
There are also these "not so sexy" drugs to help thousands and thousands who cannot pay for them.Well, here's the thing, as I understand it:
the "sexy" drugs will get made and brought to market.
The "not so sexy" drugs to help the 500 people in the world with the extremely rare condition in question....have an extremely lower probability of doing so.
That too.
Now this was me reading too much between the lines :P I am really sorry for unnecessarily lashing out at you.
Though I guess "reading between the lines" isn't exactly a quantitative discipline, so carry on...
Oh Snap! You got me there, because, you know, I did say I study a "quantitative discipline", but reading context is not one, so wow, yeah you totally busted my illiterate self!
By the way, after a strawman, go for the ad hominem!
My reading comprehension skills are just fine. I would only say you are reading too much between the lines.
Well, on this one apparently my wording was confusing; I meant that I was "reading between the lines," not you.
I got three kids; I'm used to it.
From both sides.
I tend to think that the improvement and extension of human life all over the world is more valuable than all of NASAs achievements.Firstly, someone needs to read up on NASA's achievements.
Secondly, it's been governments who have worked to improve and extend human life in some of the most dramatic ways. The Eradication of Smallpox was a goverment/UN driven measure, and surprisingly, it was first proposed to the UN by the Deputy Health Minister for the USSR. Mass vaccination is government driven. Keeping the water clean and food fit to eat is government driven. Keeping roads safe, the public secure from fire, crime and medical emergencies is government driven. It's governments who do all this, not commercial enterprises.
I also think the explosive growth of the web is mostly driven by free markets and its relatively unregulated nature even if the concept was spawned by the military industrial complex.Confusing the Internet with the World Wide Web there. And the Web was unregulated because it was created by a British and a Belgian Scientist working at CERN. If the Web was created by a company, HTML would be a propriety language, as opposed to one everyone can use and edit.
I completely conflated the www and the internet, sorry. I found the wiki on this educational.
It occurs to me that wiki is a good example of voluntary not for profit collaboration. To the best of my knowledge wiki does take government funds.
The fact that the web was developed from a government supported multinational pure science endeavor makes it an excellent example of your point. However I don't think it follows that the web (and the internet separately) are comparatively unregulated "because it was created by a British and a Belgian Scientist working at CERN." Open source and other forms open IP (such as the OGL) can certainly originate for profit ventures.
In terms of government driving things like fire departments, food safety, sanitation, road maintainance, law enforcement, utilities, public health and so forth this seems to presuppose that if the government didn't control these things in varying degrees that they wouldn't happen.
In many rural American communities gas, water, trash, phone and septic are private responsibilities. If one is on the electric grid it's frequently a private coop. Law enforcement is almost never interacted with because response time to remote rural areas render them almost entirely irrelevant. First responders are the local volunteer fire department because commercial and municipal emt services are too remote. In my experience the less urbanized and more remote someone is the more irrelevant government is. I find government to be a far greater hindrance than help personally.
There are many areas where we have come to think the government proactively protects us when in practice they simply don't. Water quality, worker safety, consumer fraud protection, law enforcement, fire protection, family services, and environmental monitoring and response are areas that I have personal experience with. We pay huge amounts in taxes and get a very poor return for it in my experience, so I'm deeply skeptical of the efficacy of our supposed government protections.
Just a quick thought, but I've seen more Business driven colaboration of late in the fields of basic research. Things like Pandora Radio, which rely's on companies being willing to allow their products to be used for "charity" that in return points to their product for sell, and the company getting to use the data generated by the "charity" service to develop new products and what have you.
Sorry it's late, but this was the best example I could think of quickly to offer on the idea.
Although i am not an expert on Physics or medicine, i would be willing to propose that NASA's work on CFC associated oozon depletion, and the subsequent ban has benifited humanity and the entire...This is a reasonable counter point if one accepts anthropogenic CFC release as the the principal driver in Ozone fluctuation. I am skeptical of this as well as anthropogenic causality of global climate change. However, given the nature of these topics, I should probably start my own thread on them at some point. Now that I know we have a PhD in chemistry on the boards it should make for an intriguing discussion.
As for ozone fluctuations, the evidence is quite solid. The photochemical mechanism of ozone depletion by CFCs is well-known. The ozone layer does suffer natural fluctuations; however, the rate of ozone depletion observed at the time could not be explained by these fluctuations only. Recent observations show the rate dropping, and it seems that the ozone layer is starting to regenerate, which is a good thing.
Since I am no meteorologist, I cannot say for certain whether evidence for global warming is 100% correct. CO2 surely has an effect on infrared absorption, the question being whether the amount of anthropogenic CO2 is enough to provoke global warming.
The whole global warming issue also points to the importance of independent research. Corporation-sponsored research in global warming is, in most cases, too biased to be trustworthy.
Wealth is really just an expression of societies combined effort. I tend to think that it makes sense that the society should try to achieve the greatest benifit for the least effort, that society should attempt to be efficient in achieving its goals. Wealth is pointless, save as a way to solve problems, or to gain ones desires. I think on a moral levels, solving problems is of greater importance than gaining ones desires.
Given that in some specific circumstances socialised approachs are more efficient than none socialised approachs(see relative costs and effectiveness of british verses americian healthcare), i think sometimes it is moral to take money from where it is being used in efficiently and apply it to solving the problem in a more efficient manner.
I would rather not state an opinion on this specific case, as i do not know enough about the ins and outs of pharmacutical companies.
If we are using wealth and property synonymously then we have arrived at the customary socialist versus libertarian impasse. I disagree that the government has the right to initiate violence against private property to pursue some perceived advantage of statist or socialist approaches.
All that remains to debate would be the relative advantage of government or other collectivist approaches versus the free market
although I have no issue with voluntary philanthropy.Volentary philantropy is inherently unfair, as the benifits of knowledge cannot be owned.
Let me try and give and example.
We will compare two parallel worlds
One is roughly analogous to the real world, with a degree of socialism inherent in its states, every one who pays tax contributes a small amount to the developement of the total of human knowledge.
On the other hand, we have a world in which liberatarian dogma raigns supreme. In this world those who value the sciences are responcible for investing in it. Obviously, given the staggering levels of scientific...
In brief, the example of voluntary philanthropic endeavor is better in my view because it is not compelled by force or the threat thereof, but my view is an extremist one in today's world, and I reject the comparative benefit argument as a matter of principal. We can have a reasoned discussion about comparative benefit, but even if you can quantifiably demonstrate that taking someone rights away benefits the majority I'm exceedingly unlikely to accept the initiation of violence as acceptable.
For example, I reject the statement, "Volentary philantropy is inherently unfair, as the benifits of knowledge cannot be owned." because fairness is determined by personal choice. If someone wants to give all of their money to someone I may think that's foolish, but I can hardly say it's unfair because that's their right. Who am I (or the government) to use force to contest their choice?
Save that the reality is that in your view of the world, you and the ten guys have to actually gather up the resources to buy the oven which takes most of your life saving. And when you finally make that really nice pie, you have the share the admittedly fairly large pie with about 6 billion other people, cause they all turn up and ask for a bit and it would be rude not too.Well, there's fair:
me and ten guys get to divide up an apple pie equally.Then there's not so fair:
me and ten guys get to make 10 apple pies; one guy had all the ingredients and an oven so he gets 2 pies. I get 88% of a pie, but it sure beats the hell out of 1/10th of a pie.So fair might not always be all it's cracked up to be.
I will vigorously exercise my 2nd amendment rights for my pie!
Bad kitty! My PIE!!
[OK now maybe I'm getting a little tired ;)]
Although i am not an expert on Physics or medicine, i would be willing to propose that NASA's work on CFC associated oozon depletion, and the subsequent ban has benifited humanity and the entire...This is a reasonable counter point if one accepts anthropogenic CFC release as the the principal driver in Ozone fluctuation. I am skeptical of this as well as anthropogenic causality of global climate change. However, given the nature of these topics, I should probably start my own thread on them at some point. Now that I know we have a PhD in chemistry on the boards it should make for an intriguing discussion.As for ozone fluctuations, the evidence is quite solid. The photochemical mechanism of ozone depletion by CFCs is well-known. The ozone layer does suffer natural fluctuations; however, the rate of ozone depletion observed at the time could not be explained by these fluctuations only. Recent observations show the rate dropping, and it seems that the ozone layer is starting to regenerate, which is a good thing.
Since I am no meteorologist, I cannot say for certain whether evidence for global warming is 100% correct. CO2 surely has an effect on infrared absorption, the question being whether the amount of anthropogenic CO2 is enough to provoke global warming.
The whole global warming issue also points to the importance of independent research. Corporation-sponsored research in global warming is, in most cases, too biased to be trustworthy.
I concur that the photochemical interaction of ozone and CFCs is completely verifiable and reproducible in a controlled environment, and I accept in principal that this reaction is observable in the stratosphere in varying degrees through photolysis of CFCs, but diffusion and air motion is an inadequate practical explanation for the dispersion of sufficient quantities of CFCs (with a vapor density of ~2) to produce sufficient chlorine free radicals to impact global stratospheric ozone levels. The absence of a verifiable alternative to anthropogenic causality to explain stratospheric ozone fluctuation was insufficient as scientific justification to change global CFC policy in my mind, and I have similar skepticism regarding anthropogenic causality of global climate change though the carbon cycle. This all smacks of the politics of fear and manipulation the the government has used to enormous effect in the war on terror, financial crisis, war on drugs and so forth.
This is one of the challenges with "independent research" in the form of government funded research. Government funded research is not independent. NASA and other government funded scientific endeavors suffer from the same corrupting influences that we've seen in our intelligence and national security communities and well as our regulatory agencies which have failed so spectacularly in the past several decades.
However we should put GCC and CFCs in their own thread, or we will probably drag this thread hopelessly off track. ;)
Just a quick thought, but I've seen more Business driven colaboration of late in the fields of basic research. Things like Pandora Radio, which rely's on companies being willing to allow their products to be used for "charity" that in return points to their product for sell, and the company getting to use the data generated by the "charity" service to develop new products and what have you.
Sorry it's late, but this was the best example I could think of quickly to offer on the idea.
To be honest i can't find anything on pandora radio. Or any large scale consortium engaging in this sort of activity< admittedly i haven't been up long and it might just be that my google-fu is weak this morning.
To a certain degree, that is a worrying developement. If such thing does occure, and i am all in favour of additional money for basic research, for it to be most useful to humanity the interlectual property rights for such property rights should be fairly limetted. Two to four years. This gives a massive incentive to involve your self thanks to the First developer principle, but also means that the open source nature of scientific process is able to thrive. It is after all this very thing then has helped the explosion.
I am hesitant to accept the idea of any major change that leads towards the ownership of knowledge(an inherantly silly notion as the only knowledge you can own is a secret, and keeping secrets in the field of pure sciences would be like wearing a blind fold while playing roller hockey on a sky scrapper roof top.) We live in a time of unpresidented scientific advance due largely to the fact that we have professional scientists in both applied and basic fields. And that knowledge discovered in basic research is Open source.
In brief, the example of voluntary philanthropic endeavor is better in my view because it is not compelled by force or the threat thereof, but my view is an extremist one in today's world, and I reject the comparative benefit argument as a matter of principal. We can have a reasoned discussion about comparative benefit, but even if you can quantifiably demonstrate that taking someone rights away benefits the majority I'm exceedingly unlikely to accept the initiation of violence as acceptable.
For example, I reject the statement, "Volentary philantropy is inherently unfair, as the benifits of knowledge cannot be owned." because fairness is determined by personal choice. If someone wants to give all of their money to someone I may think that's foolish, but I can hardly say it's unfair because that's their right. Who am I (or the government) to use force to contest their choice?
Excilent. I respect a man who is prepared to live by their principles.
If you think that the benifits of taxation based research do not justify a social contract which includes taxation for the developement, then i suggest you actively boycott one of those benifits for one year.
If, you and nine other libitarians professionals have the courage of this conviction, demonstrably give up the internet, and all WWW based technologies for one year, in all aspects of your life, you will convince me of the justice of your cause, and i will, on the spot give up socialism and embrace libaterianism. Clearly, I will need a very high degree proof that you have gone through with it, but if the evidence comes i will keep to my word, and actively argue for libitarianism.
Moving on, the social system of taxation does not 'have' to be enforced by threat of violence, it can be a part of a societies social contract, which people choose to pay or not. A society could function be simply giving people a choice. You can engage with this society, or you can leave this society with no ill will. If you engage you get the benifits, if you don't, you don't and your on your own.
Save that the reality is that in your view of the world, you and the ten guys have to actually gather up the resources to buy the oven which takes most of your life saving. And when you finally make that really nice pie, you have the share the admittedly fairly large pie with about 6 billion other people, cause they all turn up and ask for a bit and it would be rude not too.Well, there's fair:
me and ten guys get to divide up an apple pie equally.Then there's not so fair:
me and ten guys get to make 10 apple pies; one guy had all the ingredients and an oven so he gets 2 pies. I get 88% of a pie, but it sure beats the hell out of 1/10th of a pie.So fair might not always be all it's cracked up to be.
I will vigorously exercise my 2nd amendment rights for my pie!
Bad kitty! My PIE!!
[OK now maybe I'm getting a little tired ;)]
Ah the right to have a really high violent crime rate...I always personally loved that right.
Patrick Curtin
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Battles Case Subscriber)
I'm kinda confused reading the article.
Nationalisation, or internationalisation, of the $150bn cash mountain of the top 20 companies is probably unthinkable. However, the tax system could at least encourage pharma to invest more wisely. In the UK, for example, immediate funding could be generated for university research if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to extend R&D relief for corporation tax to big pharma. But more money is not enough. The universities themselves would have to become more businesslike about how to achieve commercial goals - such as creating a new drug - while preserving their academic freedom. Control must not be allowed to follow the cash, though, or the creative ethos of the university may be stifled.
It sounds to me he is arguing for tax breaks on Big Pharma to encourage them to invest money in the academic research. As such, this finds no fault with me, sounds a lot like the charities deduction you get for donating at tax time. However, he doesn't mention HOW 'control must not be allowed to follow the cash' will occur, since, of course, that is what will naturally happen. Trying to regulate it will just push it below the radar.
How is this article promoting Socialism? Aside from a spurious toss-off quote about how 'banking is too important to be left to the bankers.' Perhaps banking is too important to be screwed with by short-sighted politicians? Governmental regulation + corporate irresponsibility = a friggin mess.
I concur that the photochemical interaction of ozone and CFCs is completely verifiable and reproducible in a controlled environment, and I accept in principal that this reaction is observable in the stratosphere in varying degrees through photolysis of CFCs, but diffusion and air motion is an inadequate practical explanation for the dispersion of sufficient quantities of CFCs (with a vapor density of ~2) to produce sufficient chlorine free radicals to impact...
Do you have a reference Thorn ? I am truly intrigued by your statement, and I would like to read a bit more to compare evidence. I happen to work near an atmospheric chemistry lab and would like to discuss this with them. Maybe in a couple of weeks we can start a thread on the subject, which is a quite interesting one. Gotta love science :)
/end threadjack
Two things:
Big pharma is not the end result of smaller normal companies growing and merging. It's a clumping of companies sprung from the dozens of "small" national pharmaceutical companies, in most cases. These companies originally had a lot of state oversight and benefits, most were monopolies of the national market they were in. Further, since a nation might conceivably need pharmaceutics as part of a war effort, or due to limited import possibilities, they had even further political backup. This just to point out the fact that they are a product of socialist thought already. When the market became international, they were far too powerful for anyone else to compete with.
Second: Why has there been no new important drugs? Well, first off, there ARE new drugs, and some extremely interesting. The observation that new such drugs are few and far between, however, is valid. Second, it is always easier to make new breakthroughs when the area is young. This does not explain it all either. The big reason is that big pharma doesn't like competition. In fact, they hate it so much that they have lobbied for harder controls, tougher routines, more tedious research, reasoning that they still have the money to develop new drugs, while newcomers don't. It's a political issue: How certain must you be that a new drug is safe before testing it on humans? How much documentation do you require to approve a new drug?
In fact, about the worst thing our politicians could do to big pharma would be to relax the drug testing codes a bit.
More funding to the universities, though, that's an extremely good idea. And less politician-councils that approve every little bit of research would be even better.
This is one of the challenges with "independent research" in the form of government funded research. Government funded research is not independent. NASA and other government funded scientific endeavors suffer from the same corrupting influences that we've seen in our intelligence and national security communities and well as our regulatory agencies which have failed so spectacularly in the past several decades.
As for this note, although government-funded research can, in principle at least, be biased (see, for exemple Lysenko's rejection of Mendelian genetics and Nazi Germany's rejection of theoretical physics as "Jewish science"), it is usually easier to spot such bias due to the differing objectives of the many different countries. This is why I don't buy the "government is promoting fear" in the case of global warming, it would be something more like "a coallition of governments all over the world are secretly flexing their muscles in order to direct scientific research towards evidence for global warming" which is a bit hard to swallow.
In my short life working in government-funded science, I have never witnessed, heard, or found any evidence whatsoever of anything looking remotely like government forcing research to yield specific results. Which does not mean, of course, it does not exist.
This is one of the challenges with "independent research" in the form of government funded research. Government funded research is not independent. NASA and other government funded scientific endeavors suffer from the same corrupting influences that we've seen in our intelligence and national security communities and well as our regulatory agencies which have failed so spectacularly in the past several decades.As for this note, although government-funded research can, in principle at least, be biased (see, for exemple Lysenko's rejection of Mendelian genetics and Nazi Germany's rejection of theoretical physics as "Jewish science"), it is usually easier to spot such bias due to the differing objectives of the many different countries. This is why I don't buy the "government is promoting fear" in the case of global warming, it would be something more like "a coallition of governments all over the world are secretly flexing their muscles in order to direct scientific research towards evidence for global warming" which is a bit hard to swallow.
In my short life working in government-funded science, I have never witnessed, heard, or found any evidence whatsoever of anything looking remotely like government forcing research to yield specific results. Which does not mean, of course, it does not exist.
On the subject of Anthroprogenic global climate change. An interesting video, which goes a long way towards explaining the source of libitarian negative feeling on the subject.
Here.
Two things:
Big pharma is not the end result of smaller normal companies growing and merging. It's a clumping of companies sprung from the dozens of "small" national pharmaceutical companies, in most cases. These companies originally had a lot of state oversight and benefits, most were monopolies of the national market they were in. Further, since a nation might conceivably need pharmaceutics as part of a war effort, or due to limited import possibilities, they had even further political backup. This just to point out the fact that they are a product of socialist thought already. When the market became international, they were far too powerful for anyone else to compete with.
Second: Why has there been no new important drugs? Well, first off, there ARE new drugs, and some extremely interesting. The observation that new such drugs are few and far between, however, is valid. Second, it is always easier to make new breakthroughs when the area is young. This does not explain it all either. The big reason is that big pharma doesn't like competition. In fact, they hate it so much that they have lobbied for harder controls, tougher routines, more tedious research, reasoning that they still have the money to develop new drugs, while newcomers don't. It's a political issue: How certain must you be that a new drug is safe before testing it on humans? How much documentation do you require to approve a new drug?
In fact, about the worst thing our politicians could do to big pharma would be to relax the drug testing codes a bit.
More funding to the universities, though, that's an extremely good idea. And less politician-councils that approve every little bit of research would be even better.
Many of those new drugs fail N.I.C.E. efficacy tests...
Relax testing? Your kidding me right? Their are major examples of what your cure all answer here results in. Thalidomide, for one.
The big pharma's arn't failing to provide small incramental improvements, they are failing to innovate. Provide funding to those who are inivating, remove the investment barriers to new theripies entering the market place, but maintain high safety requirements.
This is one of the challenges with "independent research" in the form of government funded research. Government funded research is not independent. NASA and other government funded scientific endeavors suffer from the same corrupting influences that we've seen in our intelligence and national security communities and well as our regulatory agencies which have failed so spectacularly in the past several decades.As for this note, although government-funded research can, in principle at least, be biased (see, for exemple Lysenko's rejection of Mendelian genetics and Nazi Germany's rejection of theoretical physics as "Jewish science"), it is usually easier to spot such bias due to the differing objectives of the many different countries. This is why I don't buy the "government is promoting fear" in the case of global warming, it would be something more like "a coallition of governments all over the world are secretly flexing their muscles in order to direct scientific research towards evidence for global warming" which is a bit hard to swallow.
In my short life working in government-funded science, I have never witnessed, heard, or found any evidence whatsoever of anything looking remotely like government forcing research to yield specific results. Which does not mean, of course, it does not exist.
Alas here in the US this is an enormous problem. When executive administrations change parties the data and conclusions that are produced by government research in sociology, climatology, intelligence, health care and I'm sure countless other fields changes drastically. The heads of departments like the the EPA are appointed by the executive and influenced by the congressional subcommittees that facilitate their funding. Predictably Clinton's EPA and NASA produced substantially different results than Bush's or Obama's. Some of this is substantive changes in staff and methodology and some of it is spin. For example, let's say a new president is elected with deep ties to petroleum and coal. The administration purges all appointees who concur with the IPCC. After this it's not hard for the army of low to mid level career techs and bureaucrats to know what the "correct" outcomes and conclusions are. The "intel" leading up to the war in Iraq is another good example of this, and the bad intel and spin wasn't just limited to American institutions. It was not universal, but it was certainly international.
One of the PhDs on our pool team would tend to share your experience, but he's an EE working in an applied science field. Our other PhD has hers in some kind of analytical mathematics and does sociological statistical analysis. Her experience is a bit different.
This is one of the challenges with "independent research" in the form of government funded research. Government funded research is not independent. NASA and other government funded scientific endeavors suffer from the same corrupting influences that we've seen in our intelligence and national security communities and well as our regulatory agencies which have failed so spectacularly in the past several decades.As for this note, although government-funded research can, in principle at least, be biased (see, for exemple Lysenko's rejection of Mendelian genetics and Nazi Germany's rejection of theoretical physics as "Jewish science"), it is usually easier to spot such bias due to the differing objectives of the many different countries. This is why I don't buy the "government is promoting fear" in the case of global warming, it would be something more like "a coallition of governments all over the world are secretly flexing their muscles in order to direct scientific research towards evidence for global warming" which is a bit hard to swallow.
In my short life working in government-funded science, I have never witnessed, heard, or found any evidence whatsoever of anything looking remotely like government forcing research to yield specific results. Which does not mean, of course, it does not exist.
On the subject of Anthroprogenic global climate change. An interesting video, which goes a long way towards explaining the source of libitarian negative feeling on the subject.
Here.
What a quaint ad hominem, her position is that if you don't slavishly accept my conclusions your motives are utterly political and devoid of scientific merit, but if you obey my conclusions and their obvious political mandates your motives are as pure as the driven snow. So unquestioning obedience is now scientific integrity? I find that interesting.
GCC should probably get its own thread, but it's your thread to derail.
Just a quick thought, but I've seen more Business driven colaboration of late in the fields of basic research. Things like Pandora Radio, which rely's on companies being willing to allow their products to be used for "charity" that in return points to their product for sell, and the company getting to use the data generated by the "charity" service to develop new products and what have you.
Sorry it's late, but this was the best example I could think of quickly to offer on the idea.
To be honest i can't find anything on pandora radio. Or any large scale consortium engaging in this sort of activity< admittedly i haven't been up long and it might just be that my google-fu is weak this morning.
To a certain degree, that is a worrying developement. If such thing does occure, and i am all in favour of additional money for basic research, for it to be most useful to humanity the interlectual property rights for such property rights should be fairly limetted. Two to four years. This gives a massive incentive to involve your self thanks to the First developer principle, but also means that the open source nature of scientific process is able to thrive. It is after all this very thing then has helped the explosion.
I am hesitant to accept the idea of any major change that leads towards the ownership of knowledge(an inherantly silly notion as the only knowledge you can own is a secret, and keeping secrets in the field of pure sciences would be like wearing a blind fold while playing roller hockey on a sky scrapper roof top.) We live in a time of unpresidented scientific advance due largely to the fact that we have professional scientists in both applied and basic fields. And that knowledge discovered in basic research is Open source.
Pandora radio link The basic idea was based off of the music genome project, and supposedly the data gathered is open to anyone willing to jump through the hoops to get it. I am unsure what those hoops are, however the thought that coporations in this case are acting something like the nobles of your Newtonian era and are group sponsoring research on the thought that any of them might find a way to turn a product out of whatever the new research finds... while not limiting access to that research could end up being the way forward.
Consider this limits each corporations liability on any one project while still allowing them to develop products on the data from the research, while not owning the research since no one corporation (no matter how community minded) is going to allow another corporation to "own" the data of a joint project.
I'm not saying this well. :(