4 ms·

That's a classic example of an area where government can NOT do better than business, because government sucks at innovation. There are plenty of companies that

That's a classic example of an area where government can NOT do better than business, because government sucks at innovation. There are plenty of companies that are not selling insulin, so they would be interested to be able to sell diabetes cure. Assuming the chances of developing the cure are reasonably good.

steveklabnik 16y ago
They can fund the researchers that actually do the innovation, is what I read it as.
mkramlich 16y ago
Disagree. Individuals (scientists, doctors, lab technicians, inventors) can do the innovating, can do the research. They just need to be paid and given space and tools and time to do it in. Enter government. Government does not need to innovate, just write checks. The problem with the alternative, like a large private corporation, can be that it may not be in their best interests profit wise to pursue a certain line of development. Could reduce their profits. Or at least they can be afraid it might. And they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Not necessarily a sense of ethical obligation to their fellow man.
- bedris 16y ago
  Individuals (scientists, doctors, lab technicians, inventors) can do the innovating, can do the research. They just need to be paid and given space and tools and time to do it in. Enter government. Government does not need to innovate, just write checks. In principal, you are correct, but you are neglecting one very important point: the government is not a nebulous entity with an endless supply of money. Therefore, the individuals that comprise the government must identify (either directly, or by selecting individuals who are most qualified in a given area of expertise to serve as proxies) the scientists whose ideas, proposals, past productivity, and requests for facilities most warrant funding. Separating the wheat from the chaff is a non-trivial exercise. It may not be be direct innovation, but I would argue that it is every bit as challenging.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    a business would have to do the same thing. so i'd argue this factor is net neutral
idiopathic 16y ago
You might be right that government can not do better than business, but this particular story is an example of where they can. If there really "are plenty of companies that are not selling insulin, so they would be interested to be able to sell diabetes cure", none of them has come forward. This might be because the chances of developing are not good enough, but it sounds to me like you are starting from an assumption ("private sector would jump on this is if it was a good idea") and working your way backwards ("therefore this cannot have been a good idea"). Personally, my belief is that the best funding approach is multi-polar. In other words, there should be some government funding, some private sector, and some non-profit foundation funding. Each of these funders has blind spots, and is frightened by some research while others embrace it. The combination allows the entrepreneurial scientist to push their research forward at each stage.
crocowhile 16y ago
Government sucks at innovation? What are you talking about? Pretty much everything that is basic science is paid by government in every nation. It is govt that gave us the internet, the bomb, and the man on the moon. Virtually every nobel prize in history has been given to people who worked for public universities.
- grandalf 16y ago
  See my other reply: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1465601 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1465601
  - detst 16y ago
    That's not really fair. The government funds more than "development of military technology".
    - grandalf 16y ago
      What percentage of the technologies that people cite as being made possible by the government were developed for non-military purposes? Edit: The NSF started out as a way of enhancing military research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation
      - detst 16y ago
        What's wrong with the NSF starting that way? Are they not a significant source of funds for "basic science" research? Even if you want to be cynical about this issue, haven't we been doing this long enough to know that research for military purposes often translates to advances in non-military applications? EDIT: and don't get me wrong; I would love to see some shift in the way funds are allocated.
        grandalf 16y ago
        My point isn't that central coordination doesn't work, it was just that central coordination is extremely unsophisticated and is typically not a source of added insight, just a source of funds. In my experience in academe, researchers tailor their work to what the NSF is funding, not what they consider most interesting/important.
donw 16y ago
Wow, massive strawman. The government sucks at innovation? Who do you think funded and developed ARPANet? You know, the network we're using to communicate right now. Upon which countless businesses have been built. Nuclear power? Government. First electronic computer? Government. Furthermore, when it comes to drug discovery, that 'evil government' has one advantage over businesses, because they have no profit motive. Businesses exist to make money. Period. No business is going to destroy its market for the sake of the common good. If you're in the business of creating drugs, you aren't going to wipe out a disease with a one-time cure, because drugs are expensive to produce, and palliative treatments are way more profitable. This is exactly an area where governments do better than businesses, because the reward (improving quality of life) means more votes and support for those in office.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- grandalf 16y ago
  To paraphrase: The government allocates dollars obtained via taxation to the development of military technology, which often finds unintended peaceful uses. The scientists who develop military technology (weaponized nuclear, a nuclear-proof decentralized communication grid, code braking machines, etc.) are simply hired to build it or to weaponize promising areas of reasearch. Anyone with lots of money and the desire to develop powerful weapons would have developed the innovations you cite. To credit "government" implies that something about the government (other than money and the desire for weapons) is responsible for the success. Any dictator could do precisely the same thing with sufficient money. Fortunately for those of us in the US, our economic system results in incredible wealth, and the taxes generated by it can buy lots of weapons tech.
- dennisgorelik 16y ago
  Could anyone please point me to government scientific or technology accomplishments in the last 30 years? Something that noticeably improved our quality of life. Something on par with achievements by IBM (Business PC), Microsoft (OS, Office, and other software), Google (search), Apple (smartphones, music, ...), Intel (microprocessors), Pfizer (drugs). It was surprising to see down-voting just on the basis that you disagree with the idea. Welcome to groupthink.
mkramlich 16y ago
man on the moon: government

steveklabnik 16y ago

They can fund the researchers that actually do the innovation, is what I read it as.

mkramlich 16y ago

Disagree. Individuals (scientists, doctors, lab technicians, inventors) can do the innovating, can do the research. They just need to be paid and given space and tools and time to do it in. Enter government. Government does not need to innovate, just write checks. The problem with the alternative, like a large private corporation, can be that it may not be in their best interests profit wise to pursue a certain line of development. Could reduce their profits. Or at least they can be afraid it might. And they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Not necessarily a sense of ethical obligation to their fellow man.

bedris 16y ago
Individuals (scientists, doctors, lab technicians, inventors) can do the innovating, can do the research. They just need to be paid and given space and tools and time to do it in. Enter government. Government does not need to innovate, just write checks. In principal, you are correct, but you are neglecting one very important point: the government is not a nebulous entity with an endless supply of money. Therefore, the individuals that comprise the government must identify (either directly, or by selecting individuals who are most qualified in a given area of expertise to serve as proxies) the scientists whose ideas, proposals, past productivity, and requests for facilities most warrant funding. Separating the wheat from the chaff is a non-trivial exercise. It may not be be direct innovation, but I would argue that it is every bit as challenging.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  a business would have to do the same thing. so i'd argue this factor is net neutral

idiopathic 16y ago

You might be right that government can not do better than business, but this particular story is an example of where they can. If there really "are plenty of companies that are not selling insulin, so they would be interested to be able to sell diabetes cure", none of them has come forward. This might be because the chances of developing are not good enough, but it sounds to me like you are starting from an assumption ("private sector would jump on this is if it was a good idea") and working your way backwards ("therefore this cannot have been a good idea"). Personally, my belief is that the best funding approach is multi-polar. In other words, there should be some government funding, some private sector, and some non-profit foundation funding. Each of these funders has blind spots, and is frightened by some research while others embrace it. The combination allows the entrepreneurial scientist to push their research forward at each stage.

crocowhile 16y ago

Government sucks at innovation? What are you talking about? Pretty much everything that is basic science is paid by government in every nation. It is govt that gave us the internet, the bomb, and the man on the moon. Virtually every nobel prize in history has been given to people who worked for public universities.

grandalf 16y ago
See my other reply: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1465601 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1465601
- detst 16y ago
  That's not really fair. The government funds more than "development of military technology".
  - grandalf 16y ago
    What percentage of the technologies that people cite as being made possible by the government were developed for non-military purposes? Edit: The NSF started out as a way of enhancing military research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation
    - detst 16y ago
      What's wrong with the NSF starting that way? Are they not a significant source of funds for "basic science" research? Even if you want to be cynical about this issue, haven't we been doing this long enough to know that research for military purposes often translates to advances in non-military applications? EDIT: and don't get me wrong; I would love to see some shift in the way funds are allocated.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        My point isn't that central coordination doesn't work, it was just that central coordination is extremely unsophisticated and is typically not a source of added insight, just a source of funds. In my experience in academe, researchers tailor their work to what the NSF is funding, not what they consider most interesting/important.

donw 16y ago

Wow, massive strawman. The government sucks at innovation? Who do you think funded and developed ARPANet? You know, the network we're using to communicate right now. Upon which countless businesses have been built. Nuclear power? Government. First electronic computer? Government. Furthermore, when it comes to drug discovery, that 'evil government' has one advantage over businesses, because they have no profit motive. Businesses exist to make money. Period. No business is going to destroy its market for the sake of the common good. If you're in the business of creating drugs, you aren't going to wipe out a disease with a one-time cure, because drugs are expensive to produce, and palliative treatments are way more profitable. This is exactly an area where governments do better than businesses, because the reward (improving quality of life) means more votes and support for those in office.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
grandalf 16y ago
To paraphrase: The government allocates dollars obtained via taxation to the development of military technology, which often finds unintended peaceful uses. The scientists who develop military technology (weaponized nuclear, a nuclear-proof decentralized communication grid, code braking machines, etc.) are simply hired to build it or to weaponize promising areas of reasearch. Anyone with lots of money and the desire to develop powerful weapons would have developed the innovations you cite. To credit "government" implies that something about the government (other than money and the desire for weapons) is responsible for the success. Any dictator could do precisely the same thing with sufficient money. Fortunately for those of us in the US, our economic system results in incredible wealth, and the taxes generated by it can buy lots of weapons tech.
dennisgorelik 16y ago
Could anyone please point me to government scientific or technology accomplishments in the last 30 years? Something that noticeably improved our quality of life. Something on par with achievements by IBM (Business PC), Microsoft (OS, Office, and other software), Google (search), Apple (smartphones, music, ...), Intel (microprocessors), Pfizer (drugs). It was surprising to see down-voting just on the basis that you disagree with the idea. Welcome to groupthink.

mkramlich 16y ago

man on the moon: government