About five years ago while researching a completely separate kinase complex our lab got turned onto studying autophagy for a short time in an attempt to elucidate a particular cellular communication pathway. It led nowhere for our lab, but in our communications with other labs I ended up processing some protein samples for western blots as a favor. Those results were a tiny chunk of info that led like dominos to other research that led to the following breakthrough that could be a big step in helping chemotherapy succeed, and lower levels be more beneficial. It takes so much input to move forward. Anyway, I just point this out because when we were working on it, there was only basic research, nothing that was thought to be usable in the near future by drug companies. Because of that, if it weren't for Federal NIH grants in America, I highly doubt we (mostly other labs around the globe) would have ever gotten to this point, where it now makes sense for drug companies to invest the millions it will take to reach the next step and save lives, possibly many thousands of lives. For those who don't understand the concept of State sponsored research. https://idw-online.de/de/news644278
If you don't understand the difference between research with financial potential and something like this then you missed the point of my post. When it comes to most medical scientific breakthroughs they are built on a backbone that was developed when profit was totally obscured. Years of research and dominoes falling from basic sciences before business will invest. Denny, This is the crux of why I would never subscribe to your ardent, profit solves all, philosophy. I do respect your view, I realize your motives are admirable, but the strict libratarian philosophy is flawed at its core.
I don't understand how you think my representative is capable wisely choosing what research to invest in. He is about like a box of rocks, one side up until you turn it over. I expect his vote would work about the same.
Most representatives are fools, especially when it comes to understanding complicated scientific issues. That's why it's important to fund over the long run, have overarching goal in place, like understanding cell-cell communications or even just basic cancer research. It's why the NIH. SHOULD (I'd often doesn't) have long term goals instead of politically influenced goals.
This just points out a few of the success stories, but also points out that overall public funding reaps massive rewards over the long haul. https://www.americanprogress.org/is...n-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/
My last days on the job were in research, at the Almaden Research Lab.(IBM). The Government spent nothing on anything we did. Seems to me you are advocating communism for the research but capitalism for the production and profit. The public dumps money in until a good idea emerges, then it becomes private, where by the public pays the research and development cost in the price of the patented product. Very nice deal when you can swing it.
I don't think nylon was invented for profit. Privately funded basic research made a product that they could profit from. I'm quite sure most private research leads to no profit, but adds to Man's overall knowledge. I don't see why government funding is required, it's just what you know. Who invented the polio cure?
Well, I kind of am, although when business want to invest they do end up paying into the research process too. But by benefitting business, it allows more political clout to get research done by the taxpayers. But basic research is not profitable in the short term, so it needs public financing. Sure, after 20+ years it could pay off big time, but companies have quarterly profits to pay attention to and can't afford invest often in very long term investments, especially ones without concrete payouts. I love that business can capitalize on science, it keeps us moving forward. I might prefer a bit less greed so healthcare isn't such a monumental expenditure, but the overall setup of public financing being capitalized on by business I think works very well.
But most private research is much further along the lifespan towards product than basic research. That's the definition of basic research, research for the sake of knowledge, not research with a hope of profit. Private research does often lead nowhere (like public research) but it almost always has aspirations of specific monitory based advancements. But to build the foundation that real progress comes from, you need to search out knowledge for it's own sake and have confidence that over the long run, 20-50 years, it will end up helping society both financially and technologically/medically.
Interesting to see the Manhattan project in there. It usually is as a great example of government research. The AEC has on it website a piece or page about all the depleted Uranium they have available for people with a good idea of what to use it for. I came up with a dang good use, and then proceeded to try and get procession of some of the stuff. After about a month, I gave it up. They built the website advertising the stuff, but noway in heaven or earth are you going to get any of it. That was 10 years ago. It is still stored, Oak Ridge as I recall. Some at Hanford too I think or it was. Big numbers of tons of this stuff!!! Very heavy!
Nonsense. Many companies spend as much as 15% on pure R&D. Much of it goes nowhere. Driverless cars? Crowd funding. Philanthropists. In fact, I believe the math is ridiculously in private funding's favor. Government is something like 25% of the economy. Fortune 500 or 1000 is about the same. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-sources-and-uses-of-us-science-funding 258B private to $117 federal government. Why are the top schools private? Harvard, Yale, MIT, Cal Tech, etc.?
ha, well Uranium is certainly nothing I've ever dealt with, and there are certainly safety risks involved with some research, but that's still the basic idea. I dealt with some radioactive tracers but in such small amounts I couldn't have damaged an Applebee's salad bar. I did however use quite a bit of Ricin as a model for Hemolytic-uremic syndrome (hamburger disease) but since the ricin was never aerosolized it was never much of a risk.
Of that govt spending, $4 is spent on defense research for every $3 on non defense. $82B to $56B. Defense R&D has a product motive, no?
It kind of works well when you invest in a winner. My Representative is not so good at picking winners.
Worked projects at both of these institutions, joint project with a private company both times. Well the Navy also involved in one.
Nonsense, if you don't think that driverless cars have a profit motive than you are insane. I am not saying everything pays off, but almost all private research is driven by specific profit motives. That's fine, that's healthy, that's what a business should do. However, that only developed the second half of research, not the basic research the is needed to build foundational knowledge. Yes, there are Philanthropists and they do wondrous work. They deserve credit, however just like business, they almost always apply their funds towards the end of the research struggle, where they see payoff in the way of medicine or tech. Not always, Phil Knight at OHSU invested heavily in cancer research. It is directed to a more middle of the path research schedule, not just at the end, so I certainly give him credit there. But how many Phil Knights are there? The Druker lab at OHSU is based on his investment, but that's still only maybe 25% of the research at OHSU, and OHSU is the only cancer research facility that has that backing.
Driverless cars are not an instant gratification kind of research. I wonder how much federal money goes to Dow, Monsanto, or Lockheed Martin. Sure, private money won't overly fund shrimp on a treadmill, but I don't think that should be funded with tax money. There is no public good.
Denny, look up basic science vs applied science. All of your examples are applied. And if you don't think Driverless car research haven't already started to pay off, you are crazy. But what about the non-sexy research, who is going to do the research on IL1-beta buildup via inhibition of protein synthesis? The answer is nobody but public funding because there are no perceived payoffs at the moment. However, 40 years from now, who knows. Most likely it won't lead anywhere of import, but if 1000 similarly obscured topics are pursued, perhaps one of them might one day lead to curing septic shock or being the basis for some new anti-inflammatory.
