5 ms·

I sense a little cynicism here. I currently work for a startup and most of their capitol was NIH funded. We are currently releasing 3 or 4 commercial products t

I sense a little cynicism here. I currently work for a startup and most of their capitol was NIH funded. We are currently releasing 3 or 4 commercial products this year. We are hiring like crazy. I understand a certain distrust of government but I think there is a disservice to assume everything government touches is corrupt (or at least 100% corrupt) You really don't have to look further than the scientific community. The limitations I've seen from NIH funding most people would agree with, like we can't share private data specifically about users.

hnal943 16y ago
It doesn't have to be corrupt to be a bad idea. Why should taxpayers underwrite the risk of the founders of your startup?
- mconnors 16y ago
  Because its paid for by taxpayers doesn't make it automatically a bad idea either. Many things you use on a daily basis are thanks to government / taxpayers, including the internet you are using to read this.
  - hnal943 16y ago
    You didn't answer the question. Every expenditure of taxpayer money needs to be viewed through this lens. That doesn't mean that the answer is never to spend the money.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Because its paid for by taxpayers doesn't make it automatically a bad idea either. If it was such a good idea, how come folks won't fund it voluntarily? > Many things you use on a daily basis are thanks to government / taxpayers, including the internet you are using to read this. Actually, very little internet funding came from govt. Yes, govt funded the basic research, but the infrastructure came from private investment.
nika 16y ago
This is an expression of the broken window fallacy illustrated by Fredric Bastiat (I believe). You see the advantages to your company in the economy as a result of the program, but you do not see the damage to the economy that the program cost. Plus its worth noting that only priviledged groups and politically correct businesses will be getting this money (according to the fact sheet)... so it isn't even going to be allocated based on merit. Neither of these are evidence of corruption, they are just the nature of both economics and political influence peddling and electioneering.
- mconnors 16y ago
  I just don't agree NIH programs "damage the economy" and I've provided concrete examples of how it has done the opposite. Also I am pretty sure any grant writing process is definitely based on merit. We'll have to agree to disagree.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > I've provided concrete examples of how it has done the opposite. No, you've merely shown that there were some benefits. You didn't discuss costs at all. > Also I am pretty sure any grant writing process is definitely based on merit. "merit" means only that the best proposals were funded. It doesn't tell us whether funding those proposals was a good idea.

hnal943 16y ago

It doesn't have to be corrupt to be a bad idea. Why should taxpayers underwrite the risk of the founders of your startup?

mconnors 16y ago
Because its paid for by taxpayers doesn't make it automatically a bad idea either. Many things you use on a daily basis are thanks to government / taxpayers, including the internet you are using to read this.
- hnal943 16y ago
  You didn't answer the question. Every expenditure of taxpayer money needs to be viewed through this lens. That doesn't mean that the answer is never to spend the money.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Because its paid for by taxpayers doesn't make it automatically a bad idea either. If it was such a good idea, how come folks won't fund it voluntarily? > Many things you use on a daily basis are thanks to government / taxpayers, including the internet you are using to read this. Actually, very little internet funding came from govt. Yes, govt funded the basic research, but the infrastructure came from private investment.

nika 16y ago

This is an expression of the broken window fallacy illustrated by Fredric Bastiat (I believe). You see the advantages to your company in the economy as a result of the program, but you do not see the damage to the economy that the program cost. Plus its worth noting that only priviledged groups and politically correct businesses will be getting this money (according to the fact sheet)... so it isn't even going to be allocated based on merit. Neither of these are evidence of corruption, they are just the nature of both economics and political influence peddling and electioneering.

mconnors 16y ago
I just don't agree NIH programs "damage the economy" and I've provided concrete examples of how it has done the opposite. Also I am pretty sure any grant writing process is definitely based on merit. We'll have to agree to disagree.
- anamax 16y ago
  > I've provided concrete examples of how it has done the opposite. No, you've merely shown that there were some benefits. You didn't discuss costs at all. > Also I am pretty sure any grant writing process is definitely based on merit. "merit" means only that the best proposals were funded. It doesn't tell us whether funding those proposals was a good idea.