Really interesting new scientist article.
Thoughts, support, counter arguments please.
|
Just a few things I noticed. On was tha the author has a deinble conflict of interests here. The one thing that he fails to mention that the big companies that he wants govrnments to nationalize their profits are the big three in the industry that he is trying to get a start in. Advocating that the government take the prfitsfrom your competators is not really about the public good, it is about te bottom line of your company.
Also, banks and big pharma aren't working on the same buisness model. Bank are allowed to report assets that they don't actually have as income and assets. For example, the bank that has the mortgage on your home is allowed to report the value of that home as an asset, even though they don't physically own it unless they foreclose. However, a company like Pzier cannot do that because it is illegal. That i wt brought down Enron. Thus banks can run a higher debt to asset ratio than someone like Pzier could because of these so called phantom assets. That means that big pharma is nowhere near as prone to collapse as the banking industry. Nor is big pharma as interconneted as the baking industry. For example, if Bank of America were to collapseit would have a cascade effect as every bank tries to secure their assets, not only th money that they loaned to BofA but also any outstanding loans to any other bank. This creates problems all the way down the line. On the other hand, If Pzir collases, there will be someone, like Ark Therapeudics, to step in and fill the gap. If one or two pharma companies collapse it is nota threat to the medical industry like the collapse of one or two banks is to the financial industry.
Really interesting new scientist article.Thoughts, support, counter arguments please.
How does increased government funding with all of its attendant control enhance rather than retard academic freedom?
Do you actually accept the argument that private pharmaceutical research is unproductive and the government is more productive?
Really interesting new scientist article.Thoughts, support, counter arguments please.
|
Just a few things I noticed. On was tha the author has a deinble conflict of interests here. The one thing that he fails to mention that the big companies that he wants govrnments to nationalize their profits are the big three in the industry that he is trying to get a start in. Advocating that the government take the prfitsfrom your competators is not really about the public good, it is about te bottom line of your company.
Also, banks and big pharma aren't working on the same buisness model. Bank are allowed to report assets that they don't actually have as income and assets. For example, the bank that has the mortgage on your home is allowed to report the value of that home as an asset, even though they don't physically own it unless they foreclose. However, a company like Pzier cannot do that because it is illegal. That i wt brought down Enron. Thus banks can run a higher debt to asset ratio than someone like Pzier could because of these so called phantom assets. That means that big pharma is nowhere near as prone to collapse as the banking industry. Nor is big pharma as interconneted as the baking industry. For example, if Bank of America were to collapseit would have a cascade effect as every bank tries to secure their assets, not only th money that they loaned to BofA but also any outstanding loans to any other bank. This creates problems all the way down the line. On the other hand, If Pzir collases, there will be someone, like Ark Therapeudics, to step in and fill the gap. If one or two pharma companies collapse it is nota threat to the medical industry like the collapse of one or two banks is to the financial industry.
I'm not sure about your accounting point - some research spending can be capitalised if it is expected to yield results. Also, I'm not really sure that banks put the value of houses they have lent against on their balance sheet - they put the value of the loan. It may be different in the US but my understanding of accounting is different here in the UK.
But I think your broader points about the poor analogy between banks (conduits of capital through the economy, providers of payments systems) and drug companies (they, er, make medicine) and the guy's conflict of interest were spot on.
The guy also doesn't point out that the companies are probably hoarding cash because of liquidity problem in the markets - as, indeed, are a lot of companies. Also, mergers activity in big pharma is getting more common as they are under threat from increasing use of generics and the desire of governements to reduce spending on medical care, including medicines, as polulations age. So the article seemed a somewhat simplistic view. I certainly don't see governmants as being any more likely to be good at funding medical research than big companies - bureaucrats in fact would probably play safer as they would be putting in taxpayers money, with all the political risks that entails. And government intervention in industry in general has a mixed record.
|
|
I'm not sure about your accounting point - some research spending can be capitalised if it is expected to yield results. Also, I'm not really sure that banks put the value of houses they have lent against on their balance sheet - they put the value of the loan. It may be different in the US but my understanding of accounting is different here in the UK.
I pulled that little bit out of an economics textbook. It could be off, ut I hope not because that's the book I used to teach economics from.
|
|
The R&D point may well vary between jurisdictions. In the UK (assuming things haven't changed since I was learning accounting standards) blue sky research is simply an expense but when you are "developing" a finished product (rather than researching whether it will work at all) then some of that can be treated as an asset. But it is something of a judgement call.
On the loans thing, the loan value is simply what is lent - the value of the collateral is a separate issue, and should never come into it assuming that the loan remains good. Even under foreclosure, if the collateral is worth more then I would expect the bank to only recover the value of its loan and any excess would go back to the borrower (or, more likely, their creditors) and any shortfall would remain as an outstanding part of the loan to be either recovered from other assets of the borrower or written off. That said, bankruptcy works quite differently in the UK so that may be a source of difference between the US and the UK on accounting for these things, since most defaults would be the result of bankruptcy.
Really interesting new scientist article.Thoughts, support, counter arguments please.
Hmm I think I'm going to support free enterprise. The government can't balance it's own checkbook as is. What makes people thing they can balance it's checkbook if it takes over large companies? These companies make or have made profits in the past or they wouldn't be around. All our government is doing now is running up their tab so my yet unborn children and grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to pay for it later. That's not really fair to them is it?
The more control given to the government, the less control (freedom) people have to make their own choices.
|
I'm not sure about your accounting point - some research spending can be capitalised if it is expected to yield results. Also, I'm not really sure that banks put the value of houses they have lent against on their balance sheet - they put the value of the loan. It may be different in the US but my understanding of accounting is different here in the UK.I pulled that little bit out of an economics textbook. It could be off, ut I hope not because that's the book I used to teach economics from.
Off the top of my head, I'd say the value of the loan; it's a known quantity vs. the home value which tends to fluctuate.
Also, an increase or decrease in home value wouldn't necessarily be passed on to the bank, so it wouldn't necessarily be reflected in a balance sheet.....until some eventuality such as a foreclosure.I think the risk value of the loan is accounted for somehow; it's been a while since college, and I have no real world experience, but I think they account for that somehow. Aubrey'd know better than me prolly.
So if your home value was decreasing, maybe the risk value of your loan would adjust to compensate for it.
The eco textbook might be right in spirit; they just might not be being precise enough.
|
|
Also, Aub.....maybe the pharmas are hoarding cash due to the difficulty of obtaining capital at the moment(?) again, something I'm not that current with.
Quite likely. Large multinationals like the big pharma companies would normally expect to fund themselves in the capital markets. They collapsed, of course, so they would hang on to cash in the event that they might need it, given that they simply could not borrow it easily like before (so called efficient balance sheet management went out the window in the recent crisis).
I'm not sure about your accounting point - some research spending can be capitalised if it is expected to yield results. Also, I'm not really sure that banks put the value of houses they have lent against on their balance sheet - they put the value of the loan. It may be different in the US but my understanding of accounting is different here in the UK.I pulled that little bit out of an economics textbook. It could be off, ut I hope not because that's the book I used to teach economics from.
If the economics text was published prior to Sarbanes Oxly (sp?) it's completely out of date.
Profit-driven research can be a plague to the development of science in some aspects. The fact that most of the research money for drug development comes from pharma business means, among other things, that the type of medical problems which are researched are mostly those which a)affect people who can pay for it; and b)which are cronic, in such a way that people have to buy the drug for the rest of their lives. Pharma companies are growing less and less interested in researching actual cures for diseases.
Also, Aub.....maybe the pharmas are hoarding cash due to the difficulty of obtaining capital at the moment(?) again, something I'm not that current with.Quite likely. Large multinationals like the big pharma companies would normally expect to fund themselves in the capital markets. They collapsed, of course, so they would hang on to cash in the event that they might need it, given that they simply could not borrow it easily like before (so called efficient balance sheet management went out the window in the recent crisis).
I think that the current reaction of a much more conservative capitol and leverage/debt approach to the recent market corrections by consumers and business is actually a good thing. I think, generally speaking, that US consumers and business became absurdly over leveraged.
I think it's tragic that the government didn't take the same fiscally conservative approach.
EDIT: I didn't mean to pull the the thread off topic. This is only relevant to big pharma's current capitalization trends. In short it's their money not the governments.
Profit-driven research can be a plague to the development of science in some aspects. The fact that most of the research money for drug development comes from pharma business means, among other things, that the type of medical problems which are researched are mostly those which a)affect people who can pay for it; and b)which are cronic, in such a way that people have to buy the drug for the rest of their lives. Pharma companies are growing less and less interested in researching actual cures for diseases.
Would you agree with me that profit-driven research has yielded the most benefit for the human race?
Profit-driven research can be a plague to the development of science in some aspects. The fact that most of the research money for drug development comes from pharma business means, among other things, that the type of medical problems which are researched are mostly those which a)affect people who can pay for it; and b)which are cronic, in such a way that people have to buy the drug for the rest of their lives. Pharma companies are growing less and less interested in researching actual cures for diseases.Would you agree with me that profit-driven research has yielded the most benefit for the human race?
No I would not. Curiosity (and yes, pride) driven research did. Thermodynamics was (partly) developed with profit in mind. Most of the rest of basic science which practically allows all the neat thecno-stuff we take for granted to exist have been developed with few to none of such things as main concerns. Let me exemplify:
Newtonian Mechanics
Quantum Mechanics
Classical Electromagnetism
Chemical Revolution (Lavoisier)
Theories of the Chemical Bond
Statistical Thermodynamics
Evolution
If Maxwell had been forced to direct his research toward profit we would live in a very different world than we do.
|
Let me exemplify: ...
You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the world that is creating a new cholesterol medication out of curiosity.
What would have happened if Maxwell had required $60 million per year to come up with his equations? How much did it cost for Newton to develop the laws of motion?
Go to any college campus that conducts fundamental research and you'll find professors who are curious about a great many things. You'll find few willing to conduct said research for free: they still have to eat, feed their families, pay their mortgages, and so on. Talk to the Dean of Science, you'll learn that research funding is foremost on their mind.
-Skeld
Let me exemplify: ...You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the world that is creating a new cholesterol medication out of curiosity.
What would have happened if Maxwell had required $60 million per year to come up with his equations? How much did it cost for Newton to develop the laws of motion?
Go to any college campus that conducts fundamental research and you'll find professors who are curious about a great many things. You'll find few willing to conduct said research for free: they still have to eat, feed their families, pay their mortgages, and so on. Talk to the Dean of Science, you'll learn that research funding is foremost on their mind.
-Skeld
I actually work at a research facility in Brazil conducting basic science. Trust me, I know all about funding scarcity. The fact that it is more difficult to obtain large sums of money to conduct research which is not guaranteed to lead to profit has no bearing on the fact that research directed to development of products is not the best way to actually advance scientific knowledge.
What would have happened if Maxwell had required $60 million per year to come up with his equations? How much did it cost for Newton to develop the laws of motion?Go to any college campus that conducts fundamental research and you'll find professors who are curious about a great many things. You'll find few willing to conduct said research for free: they still have to eat, feed their families, pay their mortgages, and so on. Talk to the Dean of Science, you'll learn that research funding is foremost on their mind.
-Skeld
You'll find out that both Maxwell and Newton also received for their research, which is natural. What this has to do with anything ? (Mostly) everyone receives for their jobs. I am talking about the advancement of knowledge and how the priorities of those funding science can be detrimental to it in some extent. Notice that I am not saying companies should remove their cash from scientific development. I am only saying that there should be other kinds of funding available (yes, government funding, for instance).
I actually work at a research facility in Brazil conducting basic science. Trust me, I know all about funding scarcity. The fact that it is more difficult to obtain large sums of money to conduct research which is not guaranteed to lead to profit has no bearing on the fact that research directed to development of products is not the best way to actually advance scientific knowledge.Let me exemplify: ...You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the world that is creating a new cholesterol medication out of curiosity.
What would have happened if Maxwell had required $60 million per year to come up with his equations? How much did it cost for Newton to develop the laws of motion?
Go to any college campus that conducts fundamental research and you'll find professors who are curious about a great many things. You'll find few willing to conduct said research for free: they still have to eat, feed their families, pay their mortgages, and so on. Talk to the Dean of Science, you'll learn that research funding is foremost on their mind.
-Skeld
If research for profit is not the best method of advancing human benefit from science then what is?
I feel that the benefits of private research are far greater than the benefits of government research. I dare say most of the benefits of government research have been facilitated by contracting with entities driven by profit. I suppose benefit is a fairly subjective concept so I'm not sure how to quantify and support that belief beyond observation, but I'll try to give it a shot soon.
|
If research for profit is not the best method of advancing human benefit from science then what is?I actually work at a research facility in Brazil conducting basic science. Trust me, I know all about funding scarcity. The fact that it is more difficult to obtain large sums of money to conduct research which is not guaranteed to lead to profit has no bearing on the fact that research directed to development of products is not the best way to actually advance scientific knowledge.Let me exemplify: ...You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the world that is creating a new cholesterol medication out of curiosity.
What would have happened if Maxwell had required $60 million per year to come up with his equations? How much did it cost for Newton to develop the laws of motion?
Go to any college campus that conducts fundamental research and you'll find professors who are curious about a great many things. You'll find few willing to conduct said research for free: they still have to eat, feed their families, pay their mortgages, and so on. Talk to the Dean of Science, you'll learn that research funding is foremost on their mind.
-Skeld
NASA rarely considers profit a primary motivation in it's work, and it's advancing human benefit from science far more then the big pharma companies. The human nature to be curious, to show interest in strange phenomenon and discover how the world works would seem to be the best method, personally. That leads to greater fundamental innovations, rather then the slow progression the big pharma companies are interested in.
Interestingly enough, the development of the World Wide Web, something that should in time be seen as one of the greatest advancements in mankinds history, was driven by the desire for universities to share information, not the desire for profit. I often quip that the Web would be pretty rubbish if it had been designed by an American Company, rather then a Brit and a Belgian working at CERN. And of course, you'd be paying through the nose for the privilege of using the web.
Really interesting new scientist article.Thoughts, support, counter arguments please.
How does increased government funding with all of its attendant control enhance rather than retard academic freedom?
Do you actually accept the argument that private pharmaceutical research is unproductive and the government is more productive?
The admitedly small personal experience i had with funding application(in both the charitable and academic theats) and the many discussion with my tutors left me of the opinion that governmental funding, through funding bodies like UFAW (in the UK) is amoung the most free; certainly infinately more free than most funding from industry. Both in terms of freedom to publish results and in terms of curiosity driven research. A great deal of funding in the UK is either direct to universities, or to charities like UFAW. Governmental control of the money is relatively minimial.
I don't know if i accept the argument that 'private pharmaceutical research is unproductive and the government is more productive', but i do accept the argument that curiosity driven research is more likely to result in revolutionary innovations.
The fact is, companies are very rarely willing to fund curiosity driven research, because it is not certain to return on the investment. The argument goes that if bell labs had been funded to produce a faster computer, they would have set out to engeneer a larger machine, whos wheels turned faster. Rather, bell labs was funded to perform basic research into quantum physics, which gave us the transister.
A modern example would be this, no company can afford to fund the production of the large hadron collider to perform an experiment that might well fail to find what it is looking for. Coalitions of Governments however can afford to undertake such research. It doesn't matter if the LHC fails to find the higgs bozon to governments, and to academia it would be just as exciting to not find it as find it. The LHC might very well open up a technology as revolutionary as the transistor, or it might not, it doesn't matter, because the aim isn't to find them, they are however very welcome by products. Humanity can afford to spend billions to definately find something important about the world out about the world and maybe get some applications out of it, but no company can spend billions to have a chance small chance of getting a comercially viable applications, and definately get a infomation which the only real use for is to plan the next very costly experiment to help understand the universe.
So...do i think it would be a good use of some of that cash to invest in curiosity based research? Hell yes.
Do i think all of it should be used that way? Clearly not. The Big companies have a proven track record at undertaking applied science, making the most of discoveries made in basic research.
I feel that the benefits of private research are far greater than the benefits of government research. I dare say most of the benefits of government research have been facilitated by contracting with entities driven by profit. I suppose benefit is a fairly subjective concept so I'm not sure how to quantify and support that belief beyond observation, but I'll try to give it a shot soon.
I'll try to explain my point. Profit-driven research is, by definition, short-sighted and limited. It aims for very specific projects with higher expected degrees of success than usual in scientific investigation and which take the least possible time to yield fruits. Although this method is great to obtain profits, it has some problems.
Firstly, it keeps research directed towards development of profitable products. However, many of the problems humanity face, and which can in principle be solved by science, are not seen as "profitable enough". See, for instance, the investigation of diseases which are endemic in poor regions of the world. These are usually profit-poor endeavours, which are, nonetheless, of great importance to humanity.
Secondly, paradigm shifts in science are hardly arrived at by a profit-driven mentality. These very paradigm shifts are the ones which eventually allow the explosion of profitable research. The development of each of those fundamental subjects I mentioned before led to the possibility of creating technology which is now used for our well-being. By focusing only on the short-term development of specific knowledge, we, in practice, stunt scientific growth.
NASA rarely considers profit a primary motivation in it's work, and it's advancing human benefit from science far more then the big pharma companies. The human nature to be curious, to show interest in strange phenomenon and discover how the world works would seem to be the best method, personally. That leads to greater fundamental innovations, rather then the slow progression the big pharma companies are interested in.
Interestingly enough, the development of the World Wide Web, something that should in time be seen as one of the greatest advancements in mankinds history, was driven by the desire for universities to share information, not the desire for profit. I often quip that the Web would be pretty rubbish if it had been designed by an American Company, rather then a Brit and a Belgian working at CERN. And of course, you'd be paying through the nose for the privilege of using the web.
+1. This.
|
|
NASA rarely considers profit a primary motivation in it's work, and it's advancing human benefit from science far more then the big pharma companies. The human nature to be curious, to show interest in strange phenomenon and discover how the world works would seem to be the best method, personally. That leads to greater fundamental innovations, rather then the slow progression the big pharma companies are interested in.
Interestingly enough, the development of the World Wide Web, something that should in time be seen as one of the greatest advancements in mankinds history, was driven by the desire for universities to share information, not the desire for profit. I often quip that the Web would be pretty rubbish if it had been...
I don't think that NASA's mission is 100% philanthropic/Star Fleet/good feeling as that; the space race began against the former USSR and we were in it to win it for not only propagandistic reasons, but for strategic leverage.
The first guy on the moon can be the first guy with a magnetic moon rock catapult and a damn-near unassailable missile defense system.As an aside, the computer was invented in Great Britain, to crack the Nazi's enigma code.
It's a sad truth, but often times what drives our greatest scientific advancements is not curiosity or the quest for the almighty currency of choice.
It is war.
I actually work at a research facility in Brazil conducting basic science. Trust me, I know all about funding scarcity. The fact that it is more difficult to obtain large sums of money to conduct research which is not guaranteed to lead to profit has no bearing on the fact that research directed to development of products is not the best way to actually advance scientific knowledge.Let me exemplify: ...You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the world that is creating a new cholesterol medication out of curiosity.
What would have happened if Maxwell had required $60 million per year to come up with his equations? How much did it cost for Newton to develop the laws of motion?
Go to any college campus that conducts fundamental research and you'll find professors who are curious about a great many things. You'll find few willing to conduct said research for free: they still have to eat, feed their families, pay their mortgages, and so on. Talk to the Dean of Science, you'll learn that research funding is foremost on their mind.
-Skeld
If research for profit is not the best method of advancing human benefit from science then what is?
I feel that the benefits of private research are far greater than the benefits of government research. I dare say most of the benefits of government research have been facilitated by contracting with entities driven by profit. I suppose benefit is a fairly subjective concept so I'm not sure how to quantify and support that belief beyond observation, but I'll try to give it a shot soon.
The 1919 royal astronomical society expedition to Príncipe, during which Eddington confermed predictions made by Einstien in General relativity was not profit making. The aim was not to make profit.
While darwin certainly made money from writing on the origin of species, he did not set out, or pay his commission of the beagal to make a profit from the work he was to do on the ship. We know that darwin joined the expedition out of curiousity and a desire to see the world. We know that he had intended to train as a priest on his return. Equally, Darwin could not have even undertaken the voyage, if HMS Beagal was not being funded by the royal navy to undertake research in the form of hydrographic survey.
Bell labs government funded research into Quantum P-states, which gave us the transister
A look at the history of science shows time and time again, it is curiosity driven research and investment by charities, individuals, peer organisation and governments which provide use with major scientific advances.
Oh, and Cesare Borgia's chief engineer?
Leonardo da Vinci.
Your right to an extent. Computing as a technology, was developed to crack codes, but the underlying mathimatics that allowed computing had been around for some time and has its origins in curiosity based research if memory serves. Your certainly right that governments can be really really good at advancing technology and science in war time though.
Really interesting new scientist article.Thoughts, support, counter arguments please.
How does increased government funding with all of its attendant control enhance rather than retard academic freedom?
Do you actually accept the argument that private pharmaceutical research is unproductive and the government is more productive?
The admitedly small personal experience i had with funding application(in both the charitable and academic theats) and the many discussion with my tutors left me of the opinion that governmental funding, through funding bodies like UFAW (in the UK) is amoung the most free; certainly infinately more free than most funding from industry. Both in terms of freedom to publish results and in terms of curiosity driven research. A great deal of funding in the UK is either direct to universities, or to charities like UFAW. Governmental control of the money is relatively minimial.
I don't know if i accept the argument that 'private pharmaceutical research is unproductive and the government is more productive', but i do accept the argument that curiosity driven research is more likely to result in revolutionary innovations.
The fact is, companies are very rarely willing to fund curiosity driven research, because it is not certain to return on the investment. The argument goes that if bell labs had been funded to produce a faster computer, they would have set out to engeneer a larger machine, whos wheels turned faster. Rather, bell labs was funded to perform basic research into quantum physics, which gave us the transister.
A modern example would be this, no company can afford to fund the production of the large hadron collider to perform an experiment that might well fail to find what it is looking for. Coalitions of Governments however can afford to undertake such research....
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?
If research for profit is not the best method of advancing human benefit from science then what is?I actually work at a research facility in Brazil conducting basic science. Trust me, I know all about funding scarcity. The fact that it is more difficult to obtain large sums of money to conduct research which is not guaranteed to lead to profit has no bearing on the fact that research directed to development of products is not the best way to actually advance scientific knowledge.Let me exemplify: ...You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the world that is creating a new cholesterol medication out of curiosity.
What would have happened if Maxwell had required $60 million per year to come up with his equations? How much did it cost for Newton to develop the laws of motion?
Go to any college campus that conducts fundamental research and you'll find professors who are curious about a great many things. You'll find few willing to conduct said research for free: they still have to eat, feed their families, pay their mortgages, and so on. Talk to the Dean of Science, you'll learn that research funding is foremost on their mind.
-Skeld
NASA rarely considers profit a primary motivation in it's work, and it's advancing human benefit from science far more then the big pharma companies. The human nature to be curious, to show interest in strange phenomenon and discover how the world works would seem to be the best method, personally. That leads to greater fundamental innovations, rather then the slow progression the big pharma companies are interested in.
Interestingly enough, the development of the World Wide Web, something that should in time be seen as one of the greatest advancements in mankinds history, was driven by the desire for universities to share information, not the desire for profit. I often quip that the Web would be pretty rubbish if it had been...
I guess I would have to disagree. I tend to think that the improvement and extension of human life all over the world is more valuable than all of NASAs achievements. I suppose my position is somewhat cognitively dissonant because I have a fairly bleak outlook on humans in general.
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.
|
|
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.
...
Really interesting new scientist article.Thoughts, support, counter arguments please.
How does increased government funding with all of its attendant control enhance rather than retard academic freedom?
Do you actually accept the argument that private pharmaceutical research is unproductive and the government is more productive?
The admitedly small personal experience i had with funding application(in both the charitable and academic theats) and the many discussion with my tutors left me of the opinion that governmental funding, through funding bodies like UFAW (in the UK) is amoung the most free; certainly infinately more free than most funding from industry. Both in terms of freedom to publish results and in terms of curiosity driven research. A great deal of funding in the UK is either direct to universities, or to charities like UFAW. Governmental control of the money is relatively minimial.
I don't know if i accept the argument that 'private pharmaceutical research is unproductive and the government is more productive', but i do accept the argument that curiosity driven research is more likely to result in revolutionary innovations.
The fact is, companies are very rarely willing to fund curiosity driven research, because it is not certain to return on the investment. The argument goes that if bell labs had been funded to produce a faster computer, they would have set out to engeneer a larger machine, whos wheels turned faster. Rather, bell labs was funded to perform basic research into quantum physics, which gave us the transister.
A modern example would be this, no company can afford to fund the production of the large hadron collider to perform an experiment that might well fail to find what it is looking for. Coalitions of Governments however can afford
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.
|
|
Another government driven thing is the former East German barber who, in the newly unified Deutschland, after completing 10 haircuts by noon, which was his former quota, still insists on reading the paper for the rest of the day because old habits die hard.
I wonder how linked "scientific curiosity" is to "I'll get a mondo 6 figure income with stock options at a pharmaceutical co. when I get my phd and develop this novel new ACE inhibitor metabolite that cuts the side effects in half."
That kind of motivation tends to dry up when governments nationalize the pharma's to plunder them for their liquid assets.
People end up kinda putzing around, reading the paper when their quota is finished.
Then, what megacorporation is next on the block for nationalization? Who cares? They're all parasitic bourgeoisie, right?
Only good luck getting anything done. Your future is an old Wendy's commercial: "Svim vear.....veddy nice. Evinink vear.....veddy nice."
I feel that the benefits of private research are far greater than the benefits of government research. I dare say most of the benefits of government research have been facilitated by contracting with entities driven by profit. I suppose benefit is a fairly subjective concept so I'm not sure how to quantify and support that belief beyond observation, but I'll try to give it a shot soon.I'll try to explain my point. Profit-driven research is, by definition, short-sighted and limited. It aims for very specific projects with higher expected degrees of success than usual in scientific investigation and which take the least possible time to yield fruits. Although this method is great to obtain profits, it has some problems.
Firstly, it keeps research directed towards development of profitable products. However, many of the problems humanity face, and which can in principle be solved by science, are not seen as "profitable enough". See, for instance, the investigation of diseases which are endemic in poor regions of the world. These are usually profit-poor endeavours, which are, nonetheless, of great importance to humanity.
Secondly, paradigm shifts in science are hardly arrived at by a profit-driven mentality. These very paradigm shifts are the ones which eventually allow the explosion of profitable research. The development of each of those fundamental subjects I mentioned before led to the possibility of creating technology which is now used for our well-being. By focusing only on the short-term development of specific knowledge, we, in practice, stunt scientific growth.
Bailey's review of Kealy who would disagree. I tend to agree with Kealy's conclusions, but I'm not sure I agree with his construct in reaching them.
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.
To add to this train of thought, in cases where improvements can be squarely placed on profit making enterprises like agri-business, the developements are very often merely developing applications, based upon Curiosity based research. World food supplies would be massively lower without selective breeding, genetic engineering and invetrofertilisation techniques with their origins in curiosity based research. Simply put, without the Neo-Darwinian-Mendelian Synthesis, the poster child of curiosity driven science, agri-business can't produce new variaties of plant and animal, on anywhere near the same scale or speed. Kiss good bye to disease resistant crops, say bye bye to cheap bacon, no more mechanial harvest freindly cerial, and desert growing crops, forget it.
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 ?
Another government driven thing is the former East German barber who, in the newly unified Deutschland, after completing 10 haircuts by noon, which was his former quota, still insists on reading the paper for the rest of the day because old habits die hard.
I wonder how linked "scientific curiosity" is to "I'll get a mondo 6 figure income with stock options at a pharmaceutical co. when I get my phd and develop this novel new ACE inhibitor metabolite that cuts the side effects in half."
That kind of motivation tends to dry up when governments nationalize the pharma's to plunder them for their liquid assets.
People end up kinda putzing around, reading the paper when their quota is finished.
Then, what megacorporation is next on the block for nationalization? Who cares? They're all parasitic bourgeoisie, right?
Only good luck getting anything done. Your future is an old Wendy's commercial: "Svim vear.....veddy nice. Evinink vear.....veddy nice."
Nice strawman. No one is talking about nationalizing pharma. Did anyone even hint at something like that here ?
Another government driven thing is the former East German barber who, in the newly unified Deutschland, after completing 10 haircuts by noon, which was his former quota, still insists on reading the paper for the rest of the day because old habits die hard.
I wonder how linked "scientific curiosity" is to "I'll get a mondo 6 figure income with stock options at a pharmaceutical co. when I get my phd and develop this novel new ACE inhibitor metabolite that cuts the side effects in half."
That kind of motivation tends to dry up when governments nationalize the pharma's to plunder them for their liquid assets.
People end up kinda putzing around, reading the paper when their quota is finished.
Then, what megacorporation is next on the block for nationalization? Who cares? They're all parasitic bourgeoisie, right?
Only good luck getting anything done. Your future is an old Wendy's commercial: "Svim vear.....veddy nice. Evinink vear.....veddy nice."
Increased government funding to science doesn't really mean that incentive to work produce such a product is reduced. The proposed system encourages people to find ways to bring an idea to market, while ensuring that they have access to the required funds to undertake the research that allows them to formulate the idea in the first place. If anything, it actually has potential benifits to a neo-liberal economic system because it removes one of the major barrier to new companies entering the market and competing with the big companies. After all, compition is the mechanism that prevents a neo-liberal economics from stagnating, which the system currently appears to have done.
It is also fair to say that the funding system as it stands(and as it would stand) does not encourage putzing around(especially when compaired to non-performance related contractual bonus schemes in industry and banking), as the only was your going to get funding is by publishing. Publish or perish, as both a social and economic pressure in academia is a very powerful force.
Nice strawman. No one is talking about nationalizing pharma. Did anyone even hint at something like that here ?Another government driven thing is the former East German barber who, in the newly unified Deutschland, after completing 10 haircuts by noon, which was his former quota, still insists on reading the paper for the rest of the day because old habits die hard.
I wonder how linked "scientific curiosity" is to "I'll get a mondo 6 figure income with stock options at a pharmaceutical co. when I get my phd and develop this novel new ACE inhibitor metabolite that cuts the side effects in half."
That kind of motivation tends to dry up when governments nationalize the pharma's to plunder them for their liquid assets.
People end up kinda putzing around, reading the paper when their quota is finished.
Then, what megacorporation is next on the block for nationalization? Who cares? They're all parasitic bourgeoisie, right?
Only good luck getting anything done. Your future is an old Wendy's commercial: "Svim vear.....veddy nice. Evinink vear.....veddy nice."
The only mention of it is in the article, where it is described as unthinkable, if memory serves.
Bailey's review of Kealy who would disagree. I tend to agree with Kealy's conclusions, but I'm not sure I agree with his construct in reaching them.
He is wrong. It is funny that, although he mentions the importance of basic science, all his examples of profit-driven successful research come from applied science. However, applied science is practically limited by the development of basic science. What companies do is get basic research generated at public research centers and use those in the research of new, patentable, and profitable products. Rational drug design, for instance, is dependant on classical dynamics, quantum mechanics, function optimization techniques, among other things, all of which were mostly developed in curiosity-driven research.
The development of the light bulb, which he cites, is a great example of the problem with a lack of basic research. There is a reason why some scientific articles say stuff like "The development of non-linear optical materials has, up to now, mostly depended on trial and error experimentation. In order to avoid this kind of Edisonian research we attempt to derive a two-state model blah, blah, blah".
The problem with "letting the markets decide" is that the markets have no investment whatsoever in the promotion of knowledge, only in that knowledge which can directly be put in the form of a product. In Brazil, for instance, as soon as you remove government funding, the majority of scientists become "oil scientists" because private research here is mostly restricted to it. No tropical disease cures for anyone, sorry.
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.
Is this a decent summary?
According to this NASAs cost in 2007 USD is 823.9 billion.
NASAs accomplishments are significant, but I can not agree that they exceed all medical progress for profit in terms of human benefit.
I'll go look up the difference between the www and the internet now, but open source code and free enterprise are not mutually exclusive to my knowledge.
Bailey's review of Kealy who would disagree. I tend to agree with Kealy's conclusions, but I'm not sure I agree with his construct in reaching them.
He is wrong. It is funny that, although he mentions the importance of basic science, all his examples of profit-driven successful research come from applied science. Applied science is practically limited by the development of basic science. What companies do is get basic research generated at public research centers and use those in the research of new, patentable, and profitable products. Rational drug design, for instance, is dependant on classical dynamics, quantum mechanics, function optimization techniques, among other things, all of which were mostly developed in curiosity-driven research.
The development of the light bulb, which he cites, is a great example of the problem with a lack of basic research. There is a reason why some scientific articles say stuff like "The development of non-linear optical materials has, up to now, mostly depended on trial and error experimentation. In order to avoid this kind of Edisonian research we attempt to derive a two-state model blah, blah, blah".
The problem with "letting the markets decide" is that the markets have no investment whatsoever in the promotion of knowledge, only in that knowledge which can directly be put in the form of a product. In Brazil, for instance, as soon as you remove government funding, the majority of scientists become "oil scientists" because private research here is mostly restricted to it. No tropical disease cures for anyone, sorry.
Hey, just out of interest, not really knowing you from elsewhere on the boards, i was wondering what your specialism is and what sort of stuff you work on? Judging from your posts, i am guessing your a biologist, with his or her fingers in the medicinal bio-sciences, but thats pretty much a guess.
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.Is this a decent summary?
According to this NASAs cost in 2007 USD is 823.9 billion.
NASAs accomplishments are significant, but I can not agree that they exceed all medical progress for profit in terms of human benefit.
I'll go look up the difference between the www and the internet now, but open source code and free enterprise are not mutually exclusive to my knowledge.
Although i am not an expert on Physics or medicine, i would be will to propose that NASA's work on CFC associated oozon depletion, and the subsequent ban has benifited humanity and the entire earth ecosystem as a whole far more than all combined profit driven medical research undertaken during the last 15 or so years.
Bailey's review of Kealy who would disagree. I tend to agree with Kealy's conclusions, but I'm not sure I agree with his construct in reaching them.
He is wrong. It is funny that, although he mentions the importance of basic science, all his examples of profit-driven successful research come from applied science. However, applied science is practically limited by the development of basic science. What companies do is get basic research generated at public research centers and use those in the research of new, patentable, and profitable products. Rational drug design, for instance, is dependant on classical dynamics, quantum mechanics, function optimization techniques, among other things, all of which were mostly developed in curiosity-driven research.
The development of the light bulb, which he cites, is a great example of the problem with a lack of basic research. There is a reason why some scientific articles say stuff like "The development of non-linear optical materials has, up to now, mostly depended on trial and error experimentation. In order to avoid this kind of Edisonian research we attempt to derive a two-state model blah, blah, blah".
The problem with "letting the markets decide" is that the markets have no investment whatsoever in the promotion of knowledge, only in that knowledge which can directly be put in the form of a product. In Brazil, for instance, as soon as you remove government funding, the majority of scientists become "oil scientists" because private research here is mostly restricted to it. No tropical disease cures for anyone, sorry.
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?
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.
Hey, just out of interest, not really knowing you from elsewhere on the boards, i was wondering what your specialism is and what sort of stuff you work on? Judging from your posts, i am guessing your a biologist, with his or her fingers in the medicinal bio-sciences, but thats pretty much a guess.
I have a bachelor in Chemistry and a PhD in Physical Chemistry, specializing in applying quantum mechanics to understand chemical phenomena. We try to describe chemical transformations using models derived from the quantum description of molecules. This is part of a larger area of research which has the curious name of Theoretical Chemistry.
During my undergraduate course I did work in a biochemistry laboratory for one year, but I do not work with anything resembling biology for years now :)
Hey, just out of interest, not really knowing you from elsewhere on the boards, i was wondering what your specialism is and what sort of stuff you work on? Judging from your posts, i am guessing your a biologist, with his or her fingers in the medicinal bio-sciences, but thats pretty much a guess.I have a bachelor in Chemistry and a PhD in Physical Chemistry, specializing in applying quantum mechanics to understand chemical phenomena. We try to describe chemical transformations using models derived from the quantum description of molecules. This is part of a larger area of research which has the curious name of Theoretical Chemistry.
During my undergraduate course I did work in a biochemistry laboratory for one year, but I do not work with anything resembling biology for years now :)
*Hiss* Biochemistry...Pure, unadulterated evil.
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.
This is indeed a problem in Brazil. The whole process of patent submission takes years here. This is probably one of the reasons why private research is mostly unknown in Brazil (pharmaceutical or not). The only company which has a strong showing in research is the oil company Petrobras which is a private company (though the government is one of its major shareholders). It does not seem to me Petrobras has had any problems with its intellectual property during all these years. However Brazil's government has been known to break AIDS drugs patents in order to produce them for people who cannot afford it.
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?
One of the other problems with tropical disease research is that most of the people who suffer from those are poor, with no possibility to buy medicine which would be surely expensive. The fact that such ilnesses are not cronic, and should, in principle, be curable also makes their research less atractive.
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 agree that the government is an inefficient way to do it. Heck, the way bureaucracy gets in the way is atrocious, meriting a whole new discussion. However, it is better than nothing. During our last president's term we had the taste of "almost nothing" government research funding and I can tell you it was not an awesome time to be a scientist (or a scientist apprentice, for that matter :).
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.
My point is that there is a balance which can be achieved and that should be negotiated by society. When hard, unnegotiable rules like "no government, anyway, anyhow" are thrown around, we lose the possibility of arriving at better solutions. Note that I am not accusing you of making such claims, but some people do make them :)