3 ms·

I think this section is calling for a more diversified portfolio of ideas. There's certainly a lot of fad-chasing in biomedicine. There are strong incentives t

I think this section is calling for a more diversified portfolio of ideas. There's certainly a lot of fad-chasing in biomedicine. There are strong incentives to flock to the latest technique (RNAi, optogenetics, single-cell-seq, organoids) or stick close to an established hypothesis (beta-amyloids for Alzheimer). It might better if there were some countervailing incentives to stick with older techniques, or break away from established dogma. For example, optogenetics has been a very powerful tool for understanding the brain, but it also means that we've moved away from many animal models in favor of mice, where the tools are most tractable. As a result, we know more about brains that are, in some ways, less relevant to human health. A-beta, on the other hand, has been an absolute tire-fire and the field should have shifted ages ago. The NIH tends not to 'steer' the field in particular directions, but they could. DARPA programs, for example, sometimes explicitly fund several competing ideas to see if a clear winner emerges. On top of all that, we should also be building a workforce of diverse researchers.

mrjangles 5y ago
I think my point is that private money already goes to diverse ideas. A system where the government will only provide money if there is already private money involved would work well. e.g., the government will match any private money 2 to 1. Then, for example, the government can take a cut of patents that result (to prevent grants simply subsidizing research that would have occurred anyway).
- mattkrause 5y ago
  I don't think that's necessarily true. Industry is mostly interested in things that are almost ready to be translated into a product. Foundations can be very conservative (and the grant sizes are often much smaller). Anyway, mechanisms like what you're proposing do exist (MITACS in Canada, for example). However, the problem is the other end of the pipeline. How can you pitch investors on something that might not be a product for decades, if at all? Government R&D primes that pump.

mrjangles 5y ago

I think my point is that private money already goes to diverse ideas. A system where the government will only provide money if there is already private money involved would work well. e.g., the government will match any private money 2 to 1. Then, for example, the government can take a cut of patents that result (to prevent grants simply subsidizing research that would have occurred anyway).

mattkrause 5y ago
I don't think that's necessarily true. Industry is mostly interested in things that are almost ready to be translated into a product. Foundations can be very conservative (and the grant sizes are often much smaller). Anyway, mechanisms like what you're proposing do exist (MITACS in Canada, for example). However, the problem is the other end of the pipeline. How can you pitch investors on something that might not be a product for decades, if at all? Government R&D primes that pump.