3 ms·

Because the payoff isn't in the result, it is in the initial grant...you get paid first, why does the result matter. Private capital works hard on this to gain

Because the payoff isn't in the result, it is in the initial grant...you get paid first, why does the result matter. Private capital works hard on this to gain a return. They spend first, then are under pressure to make a return. In government funded research, it often is the opposite. You get paid first...then have to deliver something (even barely trying and ending in failure) and you can then get paid again the next time grant money is available. Most research doesn't result in incremental progress as you pointed out, yet pharma companies still spend a TON of research. They live and breathe by getting to the next "big" drug to make them money and make up for all the failures. Basically, while the Gates foundation isn't the example I was thinking of, the dangling of a big payoff from the government did spur a LOT of research for COVID (see vaccine and treatment methods for COVID). Private enterprises took some breakthrough concepts (mRNA vaccines) and did a ton of ground work to test and make them viable for humans. I do strongly agree with your last point, public funded research should be directed at areas with no scalable return since private venture won't go into those areas (but having wealthy non-profits like the Gates foundation working on this is nice!)

whakim 3y ago
> Private capital works hard on this to gain a return. They spend first, then are under pressure to make a return. The key point here is "return" - in the private markets, it's just a numbers game. Most successful, important scientific research is not going to make a big return. Perhaps it'll lead to money for someone else down the line, but that's besides the point. Private markets are a bad fit for huge swathes of research where success != $$$. Which leaves a couple of areas, e.g. drug development... > pharma companies still spend a TON of research. They live and breathe by getting to the next "big" drug to make them money and make up for all the failures. While correct, it's important to remember that pharmaceutical company research spending is highly weighted towards drugs with a large number of patients or where demand is relatively insensitive to price. COVID vaccines are a perfect example because they fit both categories. This usually works out OK, but it isn't a good fit for a poorly-understood condition like long COVID where the size of the target market and the price sensitivity of the customers is very difficult to estimate. You also end up with other undesirable outcomes like the systematic underfunding of research into conditions that predominantly affect minoritized or less well-off communities. Pharmaceutical companies also rely on a huge body of publicly-funded basic research.

whakim 3y ago

> Private capital works hard on this to gain a return. They spend first, then are under pressure to make a return. The key point here is "return" - in the private markets, it's just a numbers game. Most successful, important scientific research is not going to make a big return. Perhaps it'll lead to money for someone else down the line, but that's besides the point. Private markets are a bad fit for huge swathes of research where success != $$$. Which leaves a couple of areas, e.g. drug development... > pharma companies still spend a TON of research. They live and breathe by getting to the next "big" drug to make them money and make up for all the failures. While correct, it's important to remember that pharmaceutical company research spending is highly weighted towards drugs with a large number of patients or where demand is relatively insensitive to price. COVID vaccines are a perfect example because they fit both categories. This usually works out OK, but it isn't a good fit for a poorly-understood condition like long COVID where the size of the target market and the price sensitivity of the customers is very difficult to estimate. You also end up with other undesirable outcomes like the systematic underfunding of research into conditions that predominantly affect minoritized or less well-off communities. Pharmaceutical companies also rely on a huge body of publicly-funded basic research.