http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/42799/title/Follow-the-Funding/ Even without the federal research budget squeeze that academic scientists have witnessed in the past few years, Preminger says, life science was ripe for the flow of private funding into basic science labs via industry and venture capital investments. “The recent success of the biotech financial markets, with an unprecedented number of IPOs, has really brought a lot of money into the hands of younger companies that are focused on new biology, and are now valid sources of funding,” even for academics, she says. “This is not really related to the need. It just happens to be the case that the life sciences have been able to deliver very interesting breakthroughs and innovation that have fueled the industry and raised the appetite for more.” In addition to attracting private funding, shifting the focus of a basic-research program to include thinking about applications of the biology under study can also reinvigorate the work itself, Preminger adds. “Sometimes federal funding makes [researchers] very comfortable in a basic-research domain, and so the ability to venture out of that and look at more translational work is, on the one hand, important if you’re going to raise alternative sources of funding, but it also becomes a goal in its own right, once they’re exposed.” Barzilai agrees. “[Starting CohBar] created the opportunity to take some of our most promising research and get it out there so it could do good for the public.”
There are no perceived payoffs in driverless cars at the moment. IBM does amazing research. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms) Profit? Not directly. Maybe in 40 years the technology will have practical use. The math says tiny government and the private sector will outspend the combo of govt and industry by at least 25%. I am not arguing that basic research is unnecessary. Just that the government is.
Yes, there are articles that say It's great when it happens, but I haven't seen it happen much at all. I know hundreds of scientists, quite a few in the public sector too, but not one of those in the private sector is doing true basic science research. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, according to your article it does, but so do 10 carrot diamonds, they just aren't common.
American Cancer society contribute 25% as much as federal grants. That's just one of hundreds or thousands of charities giving cancer research grants. I'd give more to ACS, except the government is taking 25% of my paycheck (you get the idea).
that hogwash, you can buy dozens of different cars right now that have tech developed from the driverless research. How about all the cars that break for you when you approach other vehicles, ones that correct your steering when you go over the line, ones that do driverless parallel parking? All that and a bunch of other tech are derived from the driverless research. Also, tons of great press and there is talk of actually fully functional driverless vehicles within the decade. So don't bullshit me and say there is no payoff, we all know that there has been a ton, but most importantly, we know that there were specific profit motives during the research. And I think that's good, I have no problem with that, but it should be in conjunction with research for research sake, especially in cell and microbiology and other areas meant to elucidate how our bodies work.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/american-cancer-society-where-does-your-money-go/nFX4j/ I give every year to the ACS, it's actually the only charity I always give to. After doing a bit more research, I might end up looking for an alternate next time around.
I think you have things backward. Auto manufacturers make massive investments in safety features. Maybe those are giving driverless a boost. There were CPUs in cars in the late 1970s and since. Those car companies also build concept cars that never come to market. They don't intend them to.
I do. Just less than I could if the government wasn't taking big chunks of my pay checks to pay for shrimp on a treadmill and bombing Lybia. Etc.
I really have no way to discuss this topic with you if you can't even realize that car companies invest in driverless tech with the hope of profit. THat's just absurd Denny. Just fucking ridiculous. I could make post after post, but I could also point out that trees have leaves and eggs come from chickens. Oh wait, are you going to point out that some trees have needles and quails lay eggs too? It's easy to argue, but not so easy to actually have a discussion sometimes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car#History Autonomous cars researched since the 1920s. Working models in the early 1980s. 1980 to 2020 would be 40 years, 4 decades. Instant profits?
I said basic research is needed. You dismiss the notion that government is not the only way, nor is it efficient.
how much invested in the 1920's and in the 2010's? But more importantly, do you really think there wasn't hope of payoff? Maybe a bit here and there, but the majority invested hoping on return. But fuck it big D, you go with the BS you keep spouting. See you tomorrow, gotta do homework. peace.
It is a great story, but helping chemotherapy succeed is a profit motive, an objective beyond science for academic end result. The labs with productive results get more funding. More fun to run a lab of 18 people than of 5. If it weren't for NIH grants, even more money would have been spent in this pursuit. You took a swipe at my belief in the superiority of the private sector. I defended that POV quite well. There is absolutely no proof NIH spending is required or there'd be a lack of spending. Measurable evidence like philanthropy, and corporate R&D suggest otherwise. If NIH was the answer, there would be no philanthropy.
Well, helping chemotherapy and any research certainly does have a a profit motive at certain points, but if you recall I was pointing out the research I was involved with, long before this outcome was a hypothesis (as far as I know at least). The lab I worked in at the time had five people and was mostly funded by NIH, there was still a small bit of funding coming from a corporative study with a pharmaceutical company from a few years prior. But our funding was based on grants, and those grants in theory were based on our research to date, although in truth a lot of funding is based on name and institution. Referencing the Druker lab again (and they are amazing) they could submit a cartoon at this point and get funding, so there is some truth to that. But as an example I did end up doing research on chemotherapeutics towards the end, but it did not come from profit motive at all. It came about because we were doing research on inhibition of protein synthesis, and partnered up with another scientist who published a result on chemotherapeutics that happened to unknowingly bolster our research. We ended up helping each other and both labs succeeded for the effort. There are many labs who do look at research from a growth perspective, grow the lab, grow the reputation,..., but from my personal experience that seemed to be generally looked down upon. More labs based their research in great part on what they believed had potential for an interesting breakthrough. In the private sector, in general at least, there are more directives that come down from less scientifically educated bureaucrats as to what needs to be researched. A field of study for the purpose of a specific goal, good intentioned or otherwise. This is true for Honda or the ACS, they both have specific goals. In many ways, that's great, goals are needed. Saying we want to cure cancer is a good thing. But, there is also something to be said for letting the people who went through a decade of schooling in the sciences to use their knowledge to choose an area of interest that might otherwise go unexplored, like our interest in inhibition of protein synthesis. Personally, I see a great partnership between the public and private sectors with regards to science exploration. Without industry, we would be decades behind where we are currently. Likewise, without the public research sector, I think we would be likewise lagging. It's not an all or nothing situation. Yes, i did take a swipe at your beliefs, but not quite in the way I think it was taken. I do totally believe that public research is necessary and in great part is a building block for the success of modern America, but that doesn't discount the importance of private sector funding either. I just don't trust, especially over the long term, that private sector will adequately fund science, especially basic sciences, the areas without direct links to ROI. And in my estimation, it's those areas that need the most support. You and I disagree on this fundamentally, in another thread it was protection of federal lands. I see great good in having the public assure that over time research on ambiguous topics continues, i see great good in assuring that over time land is preserved for future generations to enjoy. I see a lot of benefit to the public assuring protection of our air and water. You have faith in industry, I don't. Profit motives assure one thing, that profit comes first. If that means killing research that isn't bearing fruit, then so be it. If that means mining or foresting land that won't return to it's natural glory for centuries or longer, than so be it. If that means poisoning the air or water, than so be it. That doesn't mean industry is evil, just that it has different motives. THat's why both the public and private sectors are so important, they balance each other out, one makes sure our economy is protected and we have great new gadgets and medications, the other makes sure our health is protected and lays the foundation for long term growth both financially and technologically. This does not mean there aren't a bunch of individual examples of govt making sound financial decision and industry making altruistic research breakthroughs, just that their overall motives aren't set up for those outcomes.
Here is an example of Government directed and funded research. The agenda comes first. I don't know if this graph is entirely accurate or not, but I assume it is as far as what it shows. The problem is the agenda is driving for a specific result. Cause fear in the general public to move them, their opinion in the desired direction to support the agenda. What the chart doesn't show is the sea rising prior to 1900, the previous 191.3, feet since it's last low point many thousands of years ago. We ought to be doing and preparing for climate change, more reservoirs, developing food production in areas to replace those that go dry. It is projected that all of the glaciers in south Asia will be gone therefore the rivers fed by them will not irrigate the crop land as before. The population density there is the greatest in the world. Where are the research dollars to help us understand what we must do and how to do it? Instead there is research dollars awarded to, how to stop climate change with the agenda being to move the population toward supporting the carbon tax. We will not get it done, we will not stop the cycle. Research should have already began on how to change, adapt and live with the inevitable. Research might well show we need to quit right now growing crops to produce fuel such as ethanol. Government will not correctly pick the research to fund until the crisis is upon us. People alway point to the Manhattan project as the super successful Government run program. And it was. The road was clear, we were at war, we knew what was needed before the enemy destroy us with the same technology we needed. We got there first, by a tad.
I think the need for government science is rare. Only when there's a great war on and we need a new bomb that requires the collaboration of the greatest minds of the time. It's a compelling interest of the state. The space program was too big for the private sector to undertake at the time. It isn't now. It's questionable whether much of it was necessary at all, except to stoke JFK's ego and reelection chances. Now that the private sector is starting their own space programs and competing with one another, they seem to be doing a better job of it than the government did. The state handing out grants is a political process. The people who run NIH are politically appointed and have agendas, regardless of which side of the aisle. Not all diseases are equal, of course. Polio was the scourge of generations and seen as the singular most pressing health issue. The cure was found via the private sector. Cancer is the scourge of the past few generations. Nixon began massive government funding of research to cure cancer. Numerous times the promise of a cure was made and here we are with no such cures. Things are better, no doubt, but the promises are not even close to being lived up to. In fact, the real progress in cancer (saving lives) seems to have occurred as government spending became less and less a % of the research. I see a limited role for federal government in most things. Its activity results in the crowding out of better things. People arguing for government ownership of land throw up straw men and argue against those, including you. I say the 10th amendment makes land management the states' responsibility. That's still "government." R.I.P. David Bowie and Alan Rickman. Both died at 69 of Cancer.
Warren Buffet Michael Douglas Dustin Hoffman Mark Ruffalo Robert De Niro Tom Green Brittany Daniel Fran Drescher Ralf Lauren Sheryl Crow Lance Armstrong Pam Grier Kathy Bates Christina Applegate Olivia Newton-John Martina Navratilova Jane Fonda Jerry Lewis Angelina Jolie And the list goes on and on, and that's just a few of the famous survivors. I would say research has been quite successful even if it hasn't found a cure. But of course, instead of all that research we could have each gotten an extra latte and scone each year.
The premise that there wouldn't be research is just bullshit, sorry. That polio was cured without any government funding is pretty good proof that the private sector will do the job in the absence of taxpayer money. Not only would there be research, there may have been even more money spent. After all, a motive to ... cure cancer.
That motive exists regardless, many companies make a ton of money from it. But, that motive only exists once there is foundation, or at least it only exists in large enough quantities once there is a foundation. But before people knew about the role of telomeres there was scant research on the topic. It required research for research sake and then the links to aging, cancer, and a plethora of other possible profit motives became evident. That's why I believe that both private and public sector research is needed.
