4 ms·

I don't understand why we don't (as a society) fund more scientific research, in general. It seems like taxes could fund non-profits to be able to do this sort

I don't understand why we don't (as a society) fund more scientific research, in general. It seems like taxes could fund non-profits to be able to do this sort of research, and then pay for the vetting process and manufacturing. It would probably save TONS of money, too.

dcolkitt 6y ago
I agree with more funding of scientific research, but why not use X-prizes instead of direct grants to non-profits? When we have a clear objective in mind (i.e. develop a new antibiotic with no pre-existing resistance in the wild), X-prizes tend to produce much better ROIs. For-profit organizations tend to be much more efficient at hitting concrete targets. An X-prize also doesn't require the government to directly pick winners and losers, or evaluate intermediate progress. That sidesteps a lot of the risk of political corruption that inevitably creeps in with big government budgets.
- mmazing 6y ago
  I think that makes total sense in terms of coming up with a solution to a specific objective. However, since antibiotic resistance, and treatment of diseases in general (COVID, for example) is a moving target - it would be nice to have machinery in place for solving these problems as they come. Regarding political funding, that's a whole different problem in itself.
ativzzz 6y ago
> I don't understand why we don't (as a society) fund more scientific research, in general. Humans are much better at handling short-term projects than long-term projects. There are many reasons for this including, but not limited to, human psychology, harder to assess risks and payoffs, and limited human lifespans/workspans (e.g. leadership changes every 4-8 years and therefore so will the direction of the project). These issues are very prevalent when, for instance, the development of a new antibiotic can take up to 20 years. In addition, plenty of science results in duds. We see and hear about the successes, but we don't really see the hypotheses that are failed to be proven and discarded, which I imagine are the vast majority. Most people are not scientists, and this kind of process is foreign to them.
renewiltord 6y ago
Because I don't really care as much as you do for scientific research chosen by committee. I much prefer that chosen by the market. So when my representatives go up against your representatives in government we get a sort of average position of yours and mine.

dcolkitt 6y ago

I agree with more funding of scientific research, but why not use X-prizes instead of direct grants to non-profits? When we have a clear objective in mind (i.e. develop a new antibiotic with no pre-existing resistance in the wild), X-prizes tend to produce much better ROIs. For-profit organizations tend to be much more efficient at hitting concrete targets. An X-prize also doesn't require the government to directly pick winners and losers, or evaluate intermediate progress. That sidesteps a lot of the risk of political corruption that inevitably creeps in with big government budgets.

mmazing 6y ago
I think that makes total sense in terms of coming up with a solution to a specific objective. However, since antibiotic resistance, and treatment of diseases in general (COVID, for example) is a moving target - it would be nice to have machinery in place for solving these problems as they come. Regarding political funding, that's a whole different problem in itself.

ativzzz 6y ago

> I don't understand why we don't (as a society) fund more scientific research, in general. Humans are much better at handling short-term projects than long-term projects. There are many reasons for this including, but not limited to, human psychology, harder to assess risks and payoffs, and limited human lifespans/workspans (e.g. leadership changes every 4-8 years and therefore so will the direction of the project). These issues are very prevalent when, for instance, the development of a new antibiotic can take up to 20 years. In addition, plenty of science results in duds. We see and hear about the successes, but we don't really see the hypotheses that are failed to be proven and discarded, which I imagine are the vast majority. Most people are not scientists, and this kind of process is foreign to them.

renewiltord 6y ago

Because I don't really care as much as you do for scientific research chosen by committee. I much prefer that chosen by the market. So when my representatives go up against your representatives in government we get a sort of average position of yours and mine.