6 ms·

> This is advice for people who have done scientific research at a university and are considering starting a company to commercialize it. Socialism for the ric

> This is advice for people who have done scientific research at a university and are considering starting a company to commercialize it. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor?

chrisseaton 6y ago
What do you mean by this snark? That the research is the property of the state because they paid for the PhD? First, many research universities are private, so aren't funded by the state. Second, most research projects are funded by grants not from the state - it comes from industry and places like that. Third, even if they are funding it, why isn't funding the creation of companies (employers!) a good thing for the state?
- luckylion 6y ago
  > That the research is the property of the state because they paid for the PhD? And the research, presumably. > First, many research universities are private, so aren't funded by the state. They don't get funding from the state, even if they are private entities? Are you absolutely sure? > Second, most research projects are funded by grants not from the state - it comes from industry and places like that. Again: 100% sure, your "most" applies? > Third, even if they are funding it, why isn't funding the creation of companies (employers!) a good thing for the state? It might be, it might not be. The company may generate lots of taxes, the company also may just move to a tax haven and tell society to screw off.
  - amcoastal 6y ago
    This is a bewildering POV. If the research is published its public domain. If they then want to use that research to start a company why not? You could too if you read their dissertation and understood it well enough.
    - watwut 6y ago
      Interestingly, the comment you are responding to imply none of what you said. It simply states some facts and corrects parents misconceptions about how research is funded.
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      This is false. 1. Universities can and regularly do file patents, including public unis and including research funded with federal grants. See the Bayh-Dole Act. 2. Researchers can and often do choose not to publish research or research output (eg code) that might be commercially valuable. 3. Even the papers, including open access ones that can download and read for free, are almost never public domain.
    - IdoRA 6y ago
      Publication does not equate to public domain: the manuscript itself is likely subject to some sort of copyright, and the underlying research may be the subject matter of one or more patents (pending or otherwise).
  - jpeloquin 6y ago
    State funding sources for scientific research generally /want/ the research to be commercialized and incentivize this. They could require state ownership as condition of funding, but choose not to. A sibling comment cited the Bayh-Dole act, which created the current paradigm of private ownership of inventions stemming from federally funded research contracts. The nominal motivation was that the state had proven to be ineffective at promoting the commercialization and use of the technology resulting from its research contracts. Since then, federal research agencies have implemented programs specifically meant to guide researchers through early-stage commercialization [0] and to provide additional funds to support commercialization [1]. [0] https://www.nibib.nih.gov/research-funding/concept-clinic-commercializing-innovation-c3i-program https://www.nibib.nih.gov/research-funding/concept-clinic-co... [1] https://sbir.nih.gov/ https://sbir.nih.gov/
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > (employers!) Oh please. "In the movie Steve Jobs, a character asks, “So how come 10 times in a day I read ‘Steve Jobs is a genius?’” The great man reputation that envelops Jobs is just part of a larger mythology of the role that Silicon Valley, and indeed the entire U.S. private sector, has played in technology innovation. We idolize tech entrepreneurs like Jobs, and credit them for most of the growth in our economy. But University of Sussex economist Mariana Mazzucato, who has just published a new U.S. edition of her book, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, makes a timely argument that it is the government, not venture capitalists and tech visionaries, that have been heroic. “Every major technological change in recent years traces most of its funding back to the state,” says Mazzucato. Even “early stage” private-sector VCs come in much later, after the big breakthroughs have been made. For example, she notes, “The National Institutes of Health have spent almost a trillions dollars since their founding on the research that created both the pharmaceutical and the biotech sectors–with venture capitalists only entering biotech once the red carpet was laid down in the 1980s. We pretend that the government was at best just in the background creating the basic conditions (skills, infrastructure, basic science). But the truth is that the involvement required massive risk taking along the entire innovation chain: basic research, applied research and early stage financing of companies themselves.” The Silicon Valley VC model, which has typically dictated that financiers exit within 5 years or so, simply isn’t patient enough to create game changing innovation." Source: https://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/ https://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    What are you arguing here, though? That every company can be traced back to the state if you look far enough? So they should all be owned by the state?
    - watwut 6y ago
      That following is untrue: > Second, most research projects are funded by grants not from the state - it comes from industry and places like that. It does not imply everything should be owned by the state al all. It however imply that people really like to lie about this point for ideological reasons and in order to demonize everything state.
_Wintermute 6y ago
You can't cure people with Nature papers. You need some way of getting ideas from academia into the hands of people who would benefit from them, and this requires things that academia doesn't have or doesn't care about.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

> This is advice for people who have done scientific research at a university and are considering starting a company to commercialize it. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor?

chrisseaton 6y ago

What do you mean by this snark? That the research is the property of the state because they paid for the PhD? First, many research universities are private, so aren't funded by the state. Second, most research projects are funded by grants not from the state - it comes from industry and places like that. Third, even if they are funding it, why isn't funding the creation of companies (employers!) a good thing for the state?

luckylion 6y ago
> That the research is the property of the state because they paid for the PhD? And the research, presumably. > First, many research universities are private, so aren't funded by the state. They don't get funding from the state, even if they are private entities? Are you absolutely sure? > Second, most research projects are funded by grants not from the state - it comes from industry and places like that. Again: 100% sure, your "most" applies? > Third, even if they are funding it, why isn't funding the creation of companies (employers!) a good thing for the state? It might be, it might not be. The company may generate lots of taxes, the company also may just move to a tax haven and tell society to screw off.
- amcoastal 6y ago
  This is a bewildering POV. If the research is published its public domain. If they then want to use that research to start a company why not? You could too if you read their dissertation and understood it well enough.
  - watwut 6y ago
    Interestingly, the comment you are responding to imply none of what you said. It simply states some facts and corrects parents misconceptions about how research is funded.
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    This is false. 1. Universities can and regularly do file patents, including public unis and including research funded with federal grants. See the Bayh-Dole Act. 2. Researchers can and often do choose not to publish research or research output (eg code) that might be commercially valuable. 3. Even the papers, including open access ones that can download and read for free, are almost never public domain.
  - IdoRA 6y ago
    Publication does not equate to public domain: the manuscript itself is likely subject to some sort of copyright, and the underlying research may be the subject matter of one or more patents (pending or otherwise).
- jpeloquin 6y ago
  State funding sources for scientific research generally /want/ the research to be commercialized and incentivize this. They could require state ownership as condition of funding, but choose not to. A sibling comment cited the Bayh-Dole act, which created the current paradigm of private ownership of inventions stemming from federally funded research contracts. The nominal motivation was that the state had proven to be ineffective at promoting the commercialization and use of the technology resulting from its research contracts. Since then, federal research agencies have implemented programs specifically meant to guide researchers through early-stage commercialization [0] and to provide additional funds to support commercialization [1]. [0] https://www.nibib.nih.gov/research-funding/concept-clinic-commercializing-innovation-c3i-program https://www.nibib.nih.gov/research-funding/concept-clinic-co... [1] https://sbir.nih.gov/ https://sbir.nih.gov/
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bergstromm466 6y ago
> (employers!) Oh please. "In the movie Steve Jobs, a character asks, “So how come 10 times in a day I read ‘Steve Jobs is a genius?’” The great man reputation that envelops Jobs is just part of a larger mythology of the role that Silicon Valley, and indeed the entire U.S. private sector, has played in technology innovation. We idolize tech entrepreneurs like Jobs, and credit them for most of the growth in our economy. But University of Sussex economist Mariana Mazzucato, who has just published a new U.S. edition of her book, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, makes a timely argument that it is the government, not venture capitalists and tech visionaries, that have been heroic. “Every major technological change in recent years traces most of its funding back to the state,” says Mazzucato. Even “early stage” private-sector VCs come in much later, after the big breakthroughs have been made. For example, she notes, “The National Institutes of Health have spent almost a trillions dollars since their founding on the research that created both the pharmaceutical and the biotech sectors–with venture capitalists only entering biotech once the red carpet was laid down in the 1980s. We pretend that the government was at best just in the background creating the basic conditions (skills, infrastructure, basic science). But the truth is that the involvement required massive risk taking along the entire innovation chain: basic research, applied research and early stage financing of companies themselves.” The Silicon Valley VC model, which has typically dictated that financiers exit within 5 years or so, simply isn’t patient enough to create game changing innovation." Source: https://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/ https://time.com/4089171/mariana-mazzucato/
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  What are you arguing here, though? That every company can be traced back to the state if you look far enough? So they should all be owned by the state?
  - watwut 6y ago
    That following is untrue: > Second, most research projects are funded by grants not from the state - it comes from industry and places like that. It does not imply everything should be owned by the state al all. It however imply that people really like to lie about this point for ideological reasons and in order to demonize everything state.

_Wintermute 6y ago

You can't cure people with Nature papers. You need some way of getting ideas from academia into the hands of people who would benefit from them, and this requires things that academia doesn't have or doesn't care about.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]