7 ms·

The problem I have with this sort of line of reasoning is that it views research in an entirely economic light. It opens with a quote about how scientific resea

The problem I have with this sort of line of reasoning is that it views research in an entirely economic light. It opens with a quote about how scientific research is not a public good, and a suggestion that publicly funded research might harm economic growth. But what about research that does not have a direct impact on the economy? What about the Hubble, or supercolliders? What private company would fund those? Or, the best example I can think of, is about a therapy for panic disorder (a psychological disorder). There is a remarkable effective talk therapy for panic disorder which cures 80+% of the people who have it, and those people stay cured years after they complete the therapy (and there is no evidence it ever returns). The most effective drug treatments cure much fewer than half of the people, and once those people stop taking the drugs, the panic tends to return. The studies comparing drugs and talk therapy are incredibly expensive, and almost all of them come out of England, paid for by the government. What private company would ever want to fund that sort of research? They have an highly profitable drug treatment, which is effectively addictive (if you stop it, the panic returns)? Why would they spend their own money to research a course of therapy that lasts 8-12 weeks and is then done? I don't think private research is a bad thing at all. But private research is profit driven, and there are some really important problems out there that don't have a big financial payoff once they're solved. Economically speaking, finding a more effective to regrow hair in bald men would probably be a lot more profitable than finding a cheap cure for any number of diseases ravaging Africa. Doesn't mean it's more important.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
The studies comparing drugs and talk therapy are incredibly expensive, and almost all of them come out of England, paid for by the government. What private company would ever want to fund that sort of research? Evidence that psychotherapy beats drugs would benefit these guys: http://www.americanpsychotherapy.com/ http://www.americanpsychotherapy.com/ These guys would probably like to know which method of treatment is not worth paying for: http://www.ahip.org/ http://www.ahip.org/ [Edit: kinda curious why I'm being downmodded for this.]
kiba 16y ago
Economically speaking, finding a more effective to regrow hair in bald men would probably be a lot more profitable than finding a cheap cure for any number of diseases ravaging Africa. Doesn't mean it's more important. In the long run, there are far more values in curing ravaging diseases in Africa than there are values in curing bald hair men, at least to me.(Less disease ravaging means more time for educations, which might mean economic growth, which might mean bigger markets) For a corporation, it might make more sense to cure bald men instead of people in Africa. But it doesn't make sense for a charity organization to cure bald men instead of people in Africa because of their different aim. Private research doesn't have to be profit...err money driven, but it can be done for err..noble reasons. What to prevent billionaire from spending money on non...errr..profit research. Indeed, you would expect millionaires and billionaires to donate money to causes that seriously affect their life, whether it is themselves or a love one. So what if it is viewed in economic lights? You're only looking at it in one perspective, which is how to make a lot of money. What you did forget is the true motivations why humans pursue money, like being able to live longer, have fun, being curious, have sex, etc.
- abstractbill 16y ago
  What['s] to prevent billionaire from spending money on non...errr..profit research... Nothing, of course. But I would rather not rely on the generosity of billionaires to cure the diseases that ravage Africa.
  - gaius 16y ago
    Instead you would "rely" on a politician taxing his voters. Which he will be doing because his notion of "profit" is not measured in dollars but in votes. At least the billionaire's motives are transparent. Here in England we are cutting budgets left, right and centre after the last government nearly bankrupted us. The foreign aid budget is ringfenced. The LibCons have come under a lot of flak for this - but they would have if they'd cut it too - it's simple maths at the end of the day. Remember - the money has to come from somewhere.
    - 16y ago
shasta 16y ago
The way this should work out in capitalistic theory is that those affected by panic disorder should fund the research into its cure. > Economically speaking, finding a more effective to regrow hair in bald men would probably be a lot more profitable than finding a cheap cure for any number of diseases ravaging Africa. Doesn't mean it's more important. The problem with this line of reasoning is the implicit assumption that it's your job to decide what's important. (BTW, you could probably send the money you spend on internet access each month to Africa, and save a child/mo. Be sure to reconcile that fact with your world view) Many of the problems with pure capitalism stem from the fact that in practice, things don't work out as well as in theory, often because people aren't rational and information isn't symmetric. You should still try to understand how it's supposed to work.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  "The way this should work out in capitalistic theory is that those affected by panic disorder should fund the research into its cure." But even if they found promising lines of research, they might be too nervous to provide enough funding...
  - shasta 16y ago
    Usually the way you mitigate risk is by pooling it. That can be done voluntarily, you know.
nazgulnarsil 16y ago
What about the Hubble, or supercolliders? what about them? the billions invested in them could have given us some tangible benefits in saving lives, directly or indirectly.
- abstractbill 16y ago
  Pure basic research has a very interesting habit of turning out to be useful in the long run.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

The studies comparing drugs and talk therapy are incredibly expensive, and almost all of them come out of England, paid for by the government. What private company would ever want to fund that sort of research? Evidence that psychotherapy beats drugs would benefit these guys: http://www.americanpsychotherapy.com/ http://www.americanpsychotherapy.com/ These guys would probably like to know which method of treatment is not worth paying for: http://www.ahip.org/ http://www.ahip.org/ [Edit: kinda curious why I'm being downmodded for this.]

kiba 16y ago

Economically speaking, finding a more effective to regrow hair in bald men would probably be a lot more profitable than finding a cheap cure for any number of diseases ravaging Africa. Doesn't mean it's more important. In the long run, there are far more values in curing ravaging diseases in Africa than there are values in curing bald hair men, at least to me.(Less disease ravaging means more time for educations, which might mean economic growth, which might mean bigger markets) For a corporation, it might make more sense to cure bald men instead of people in Africa. But it doesn't make sense for a charity organization to cure bald men instead of people in Africa because of their different aim. Private research doesn't have to be profit...err money driven, but it can be done for err..noble reasons. What to prevent billionaire from spending money on non...errr..profit research. Indeed, you would expect millionaires and billionaires to donate money to causes that seriously affect their life, whether it is themselves or a love one. So what if it is viewed in economic lights? You're only looking at it in one perspective, which is how to make a lot of money. What you did forget is the true motivations why humans pursue money, like being able to live longer, have fun, being curious, have sex, etc.

abstractbill 16y ago
What['s] to prevent billionaire from spending money on non...errr..profit research... Nothing, of course. But I would rather not rely on the generosity of billionaires to cure the diseases that ravage Africa.
- gaius 16y ago
  Instead you would "rely" on a politician taxing his voters. Which he will be doing because his notion of "profit" is not measured in dollars but in votes. At least the billionaire's motives are transparent. Here in England we are cutting budgets left, right and centre after the last government nearly bankrupted us. The foreign aid budget is ringfenced. The LibCons have come under a lot of flak for this - but they would have if they'd cut it too - it's simple maths at the end of the day. Remember - the money has to come from somewhere.
  - 16y ago

shasta 16y ago

The way this should work out in capitalistic theory is that those affected by panic disorder should fund the research into its cure. > Economically speaking, finding a more effective to regrow hair in bald men would probably be a lot more profitable than finding a cheap cure for any number of diseases ravaging Africa. Doesn't mean it's more important. The problem with this line of reasoning is the implicit assumption that it's your job to decide what's important. (BTW, you could probably send the money you spend on internet access each month to Africa, and save a child/mo. Be sure to reconcile that fact with your world view) Many of the problems with pure capitalism stem from the fact that in practice, things don't work out as well as in theory, often because people aren't rational and information isn't symmetric. You should still try to understand how it's supposed to work.

joe_the_user 16y ago
"The way this should work out in capitalistic theory is that those affected by panic disorder should fund the research into its cure." But even if they found promising lines of research, they might be too nervous to provide enough funding...
- shasta 16y ago
  Usually the way you mitigate risk is by pooling it. That can be done voluntarily, you know.

nazgulnarsil 16y ago

What about the Hubble, or supercolliders? what about them? the billions invested in them could have given us some tangible benefits in saving lives, directly or indirectly.

abstractbill 16y ago
Pure basic research has a very interesting habit of turning out to be useful in the long run.