5 ms·

Globally we spend trillions on weapons (specifically nuclear weapons) that nobody wants to use so the problem doesn't seem completely insurmountable?

vikramkr 6y ago
The problem is that in America, creating jobs is a significant focus in government spending, including military spending. There's not a lot of jobs in antibiotics the same way that there are lots of well paying jobs to bring to your congressional district if you fund a plane to nowhere. Elsewhere in the world maybe it's different and there's an opportunity there, but spending decisions like those in the US are very jobs driven and antibiotics just don't really fit into that
- giantg2 6y ago
  I think that's a slight over generalization, but there's definitely truth there. The DoD is partnering with (funding) phage therapy research companies.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    I can recommend The Shadow World about the global arms trade : http://www.theshadowworldbook.com/ http://www.theshadowworldbook.com/ Mind you - not a book for the easily angered.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Sounds interesting. I've heard of some of the stuff on this subject but I'm probably not familiar with all the details or examples. Maybe I will check it out.
  - vikramkr 6y ago
    Definitely fair to call it an over generalization - I grew up in a town with a "private sector" that only existed because of government contracts and have worked on pursuing DoD contracts for life sciences applications, and from what I've seen, it's fair to say that creating employment in the US continues to be a very large part of the driving force behind why funding is allocated by the government. The program managers aren't necessarily keeping it front of mind, but the people signing the legislation to give the program managers their funds to manage basically only care about the jobs part, and that bleeds through in a lot of subtle and non-subtle ways
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Yep. Murtha brought in tons of pork barrel spending in the Johnstown, PA area. So similar situation there.
- arethuza 6y ago
  Does a billion on antibiotics research really get you fewer jobs than a billion on weapons development?
- x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
  How come military oriented job programs are the only ones that seem to pass the Grim-Reaper of Free-Market zealotry?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    Free markets are just something you say. The voters who claim to care think the free market are coupons at the supermarket or something anyway. The political contributions of the sheet metal shop in your district that stamps some widget for the F-35 at 50x market price definitely matter.
  - momokoko 6y ago
    Because based upon WTO agreements and others, the US cannot force all contractors and suppliers to hire only or mostly within the US. The one exception is “national security”. So military spending is the most efficient to create jobs in the US because you can prevent hiring in other countries. An example in the opposite direction is US subsidies for solar energy. These subsidies do create some jobs installing them, but the majority of jobs end up created overseas in other countries like China.
    - arethuza 6y ago
      Interesting, one of the areas that the UK government and the EU are apparently arguing over is our apparently quite right wing government wants more freedom to support UK companies through state aid than the 'socialist' EU would like. If we were to be constrained by WTO rules (an organisation hardcore Leavers seem very fond of) perhaps we can expect an increase in UK arms spending, though this being the UK no doubt this won't mean any improvements for the people at the sharp end of things.
      - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        Government procurement is interesting, eh. We've recently spent something like £1Billion on masks - hundreds of millions to companies which seem all to have connections to Tory faithful ... and AFAICT none of which have provided useable masks. (Aside from corruption why would they pay if the product isn't useable??!). I dare say defence procurement will be similar. Here's to cutting all that contracting red-tape the EU had us wade through. /s
- jandrewrogers 6y ago
  The US military spends a considerable amount of money on biomedical research, usually on diseases and procedures that no one else prioritizes for funding, including the rest of the government, because it is neither politically fashionable nor lucrative. The boring but important stuff that no politician will ever talk about in front of a camera. As a well-known example, modern trauma medicine was practically invented by the US Army. They systematically invested in research for the better part of a century to maximize survival rates, minimize recovery times, and restore full body function post-trauma to the extent possible. If you are in a serious car crash, most of the procedures to optimize your outcome were originally developed in a battlefield context by the military. They also fund a lot of research for relatively common diseases that attract little government funding otherwise due to lack of fashionability e.g. multiple sclerosis. Their incentives are different than either the rest of government or the private sector, and that is probably a good thing.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Yup. BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) which is responsible for supporting the development of bioterrorism countermeasures has a number of grants for research that overlaps nicely with antiinfective development.
- bluGill 6y ago
  The EU has more people than the US, now granted there are some poor people in that count, but it is still more than enough to make whatever difference you blame America for not making all alone.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> so the problem doesn't seem completely insurmountable? BARDA [1] has a defence mandate, though it reports to HHS, and is a major public funder of antibiotic research (per the article). [1] https://www.phe.gov/about/barda/Pages/default.aspx https://www.phe.gov/about/barda/Pages/default.aspx
dcolkitt 6y ago
The steel man defense for nuclear weapons is just that: nobody wants to use them. Since the development of nuclear weapons, there's been no outright wars between the major powers for nearly a century. We've lived through the most peaceful period in all of human history. It's debatable how much nuclear armarment contributed to that. But prima facie, it certainly seems like a major reason that the US, Russia, or China haven't gone to war with each other. Given the carnage of the previous two world wars, it seems to me that every dollar spent on nuclear weapons was worth it ten times over.
- arethuza 6y ago
  In this particular case I wasn't, for once, arguing against nuclear weapons but rather that spending comparable amounts on antibiotics might actually bring benefits.

vikramkr 6y ago

The problem is that in America, creating jobs is a significant focus in government spending, including military spending. There's not a lot of jobs in antibiotics the same way that there are lots of well paying jobs to bring to your congressional district if you fund a plane to nowhere. Elsewhere in the world maybe it's different and there's an opportunity there, but spending decisions like those in the US are very jobs driven and antibiotics just don't really fit into that

giantg2 6y ago
I think that's a slight over generalization, but there's definitely truth there. The DoD is partnering with (funding) phage therapy research companies.
- arethuza 6y ago
  I can recommend The Shadow World about the global arms trade : http://www.theshadowworldbook.com/ http://www.theshadowworldbook.com/ Mind you - not a book for the easily angered.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Sounds interesting. I've heard of some of the stuff on this subject but I'm probably not familiar with all the details or examples. Maybe I will check it out.
- vikramkr 6y ago
  Definitely fair to call it an over generalization - I grew up in a town with a "private sector" that only existed because of government contracts and have worked on pursuing DoD contracts for life sciences applications, and from what I've seen, it's fair to say that creating employment in the US continues to be a very large part of the driving force behind why funding is allocated by the government. The program managers aren't necessarily keeping it front of mind, but the people signing the legislation to give the program managers their funds to manage basically only care about the jobs part, and that bleeds through in a lot of subtle and non-subtle ways
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Yep. Murtha brought in tons of pork barrel spending in the Johnstown, PA area. So similar situation there.
arethuza 6y ago
Does a billion on antibiotics research really get you fewer jobs than a billion on weapons development?
x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
How come military oriented job programs are the only ones that seem to pass the Grim-Reaper of Free-Market zealotry?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Free markets are just something you say. The voters who claim to care think the free market are coupons at the supermarket or something anyway. The political contributions of the sheet metal shop in your district that stamps some widget for the F-35 at 50x market price definitely matter.
- momokoko 6y ago
  Because based upon WTO agreements and others, the US cannot force all contractors and suppliers to hire only or mostly within the US. The one exception is “national security”. So military spending is the most efficient to create jobs in the US because you can prevent hiring in other countries. An example in the opposite direction is US subsidies for solar energy. These subsidies do create some jobs installing them, but the majority of jobs end up created overseas in other countries like China.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    Interesting, one of the areas that the UK government and the EU are apparently arguing over is our apparently quite right wing government wants more freedom to support UK companies through state aid than the 'socialist' EU would like. If we were to be constrained by WTO rules (an organisation hardcore Leavers seem very fond of) perhaps we can expect an increase in UK arms spending, though this being the UK no doubt this won't mean any improvements for the people at the sharp end of things.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      Government procurement is interesting, eh. We've recently spent something like £1Billion on masks - hundreds of millions to companies which seem all to have connections to Tory faithful ... and AFAICT none of which have provided useable masks. (Aside from corruption why would they pay if the product isn't useable??!). I dare say defence procurement will be similar. Here's to cutting all that contracting red-tape the EU had us wade through. /s
jandrewrogers 6y ago
The US military spends a considerable amount of money on biomedical research, usually on diseases and procedures that no one else prioritizes for funding, including the rest of the government, because it is neither politically fashionable nor lucrative. The boring but important stuff that no politician will ever talk about in front of a camera. As a well-known example, modern trauma medicine was practically invented by the US Army. They systematically invested in research for the better part of a century to maximize survival rates, minimize recovery times, and restore full body function post-trauma to the extent possible. If you are in a serious car crash, most of the procedures to optimize your outcome were originally developed in a battlefield context by the military. They also fund a lot of research for relatively common diseases that attract little government funding otherwise due to lack of fashionability e.g. multiple sclerosis. Their incentives are different than either the rest of government or the private sector, and that is probably a good thing.
- refurb 6y ago
  Yup. BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) which is responsible for supporting the development of bioterrorism countermeasures has a number of grants for research that overlaps nicely with antiinfective development.
bluGill 6y ago
The EU has more people than the US, now granted there are some poor people in that count, but it is still more than enough to make whatever difference you blame America for not making all alone.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> so the problem doesn't seem completely insurmountable? BARDA [1] has a defence mandate, though it reports to HHS, and is a major public funder of antibiotic research (per the article). [1] https://www.phe.gov/about/barda/Pages/default.aspx https://www.phe.gov/about/barda/Pages/default.aspx

dcolkitt 6y ago

The steel man defense for nuclear weapons is just that: nobody wants to use them. Since the development of nuclear weapons, there's been no outright wars between the major powers for nearly a century. We've lived through the most peaceful period in all of human history. It's debatable how much nuclear armarment contributed to that. But prima facie, it certainly seems like a major reason that the US, Russia, or China haven't gone to war with each other. Given the carnage of the previous two world wars, it seems to me that every dollar spent on nuclear weapons was worth it ten times over.

arethuza 6y ago
In this particular case I wasn't, for once, arguing against nuclear weapons but rather that spending comparable amounts on antibiotics might actually bring benefits.