4 ms·

That's only true in a very myopic sense. You don't get the US economy (and all of the benefits that come from that) without science and technology and basic res

That's only true in a very myopic sense. You don't get the US economy (and all of the benefits that come from that) without science and technology and basic research funding.

Gabriel54 2y ago
You are speaking on an intellectual level. The comment you replied to is speaking on a practical, political level. If voters do not like what is going on in universities, they will defund them. This is a political reality.
jandrewrogers 2y ago
~82% of all R&D funding in the US is non-Federal, and 75+% is industry. The total investment by companies on R&D is about the same as the US defense budget. Many people still think it is like the 1960s and 1970s, when US government funding of R&D was a large percentage of the total. Federal investment in R&D hasn't declined so much as industry massively increased their investment. The Federal government found a niche in basic research for a few decades and funded the vast majority of that. Per NSF, today even basic research is <40% funded by the Federal government, again not due to a decline in Federal funding but due to vast increases in industry investment. This shift toward industry investment in basic research was not overnight, it has been a monotonic trend for decades. Over the last century, the areas where Federal research funding is critical have dwindled greatly in scope because industry spends more money and is willing to take more risks. One of the more interesting stories here is why and how this change happened in the US, to the point where the vast majority of R&D is funded by industry even in areas historically dominated by Federal government funding.
- apical_dendrite 2y ago
  It's worth distinguishing between R&D and science. In my experience in industry, R&D is very focused on product development. Sometimes on a little longer time horizon than engineering, but it's research to solve some problem that the company has. Sometimes that problem is also more broadly useful towards advancing human knowledge and understanding, but often it's not. At my last company, the R&D department focused entirely on 1) building algorithms for a specific product (nothing that advanced the state of the art, just applying well-established techniques to the company's particular hardware); and 2) helping market the company's products by letting them claim that they were clinically-proven. Would they ever publish anything that showed a result that wouldn't serve the company's interests? Of course not. Yes, I know there are some industrial labs that do more basic research, but I've never worked at one. Also, industry isn't really doing that much to train the next generation of scientists.
- qqqwerty 2y ago
  We are at the tail end of a 50 year bull run powered by declining interest rates. Maybe ZIRP is the new normal and private industry R&D investment stays high, but I don't think we should gamble our status as an economic, scientific, and technological powerhouse on that and gut our government financed R&D programs. Further more, my wife works in biotech so I have seen first hand the compromises one has to make to secure private funding. They care about things like market size and revenue potential when making these investments, which means you end up with most of the money flowing towards diseases that largely affect rich people and solutions that are either expensive or recurring. And lets also not forget that almost all of these companies are working off of or spinning out from research programs that were funded by the government. I have yet to meet a single company where that wasn't the case.
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  Almost 100% of basic scientific research in the world is funded by governments. The R&D figures you're citing are for engineering the latest iPhone, not for figuring out how basic biology works.
- relaxing 2y ago
  I need to read more details on this because everything I’ve seen in the past 30 years has involved industry shutting down basic research. Maybe it’s more true in some fields (biotech?) How is this counted? If it’s based on tax figures, there’s a lot of corporate “R&D” that gets written off that wouldn’t be considered research in an academic setting.
  - jandrewrogers 2y ago
    Those numbers come from NSF, so I assume the definition of "basic research" would align with NSF. The rise in basic research in industry coincides with the rise of technology as a major component of the US economy decades ago. I suspect these are not unrelated. The growth of deep tech investment by the private sector probably has a lot to do with it.

That's only true in a very myopic sense. You don't get the US economy (and all of the benefits that come from that) without science and technology and basic research funding.

Gabriel54 2y ago

You are speaking on an intellectual level. The comment you replied to is speaking on a practical, political level. If voters do not like what is going on in universities, they will defund them. This is a political reality.

jandrewrogers 2y ago

~82% of all R&D funding in the US is non-Federal, and 75+% is industry. The total investment by companies on R&D is about the same as the US defense budget. Many people still think it is like the 1960s and 1970s, when US government funding of R&D was a large percentage of the total. Federal investment in R&D hasn't declined so much as industry massively increased their investment. The Federal government found a niche in basic research for a few decades and funded the vast majority of that. Per NSF, today even basic research is <40% funded by the Federal government, again not due to a decline in Federal funding but due to vast increases in industry investment. This shift toward industry investment in basic research was not overnight, it has been a monotonic trend for decades. Over the last century, the areas where Federal research funding is critical have dwindled greatly in scope because industry spends more money and is willing to take more risks. One of the more interesting stories here is why and how this change happened in the US, to the point where the vast majority of R&D is funded by industry even in areas historically dominated by Federal government funding.

apical_dendrite 2y ago
It's worth distinguishing between R&D and science. In my experience in industry, R&D is very focused on product development. Sometimes on a little longer time horizon than engineering, but it's research to solve some problem that the company has. Sometimes that problem is also more broadly useful towards advancing human knowledge and understanding, but often it's not. At my last company, the R&D department focused entirely on 1) building algorithms for a specific product (nothing that advanced the state of the art, just applying well-established techniques to the company's particular hardware); and 2) helping market the company's products by letting them claim that they were clinically-proven. Would they ever publish anything that showed a result that wouldn't serve the company's interests? Of course not. Yes, I know there are some industrial labs that do more basic research, but I've never worked at one. Also, industry isn't really doing that much to train the next generation of scientists.
qqqwerty 2y ago
We are at the tail end of a 50 year bull run powered by declining interest rates. Maybe ZIRP is the new normal and private industry R&D investment stays high, but I don't think we should gamble our status as an economic, scientific, and technological powerhouse on that and gut our government financed R&D programs. Further more, my wife works in biotech so I have seen first hand the compromises one has to make to secure private funding. They care about things like market size and revenue potential when making these investments, which means you end up with most of the money flowing towards diseases that largely affect rich people and solutions that are either expensive or recurring. And lets also not forget that almost all of these companies are working off of or spinning out from research programs that were funded by the government. I have yet to meet a single company where that wasn't the case.
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
Almost 100% of basic scientific research in the world is funded by governments. The R&D figures you're citing are for engineering the latest iPhone, not for figuring out how basic biology works.
relaxing 2y ago
I need to read more details on this because everything I’ve seen in the past 30 years has involved industry shutting down basic research. Maybe it’s more true in some fields (biotech?) How is this counted? If it’s based on tax figures, there’s a lot of corporate “R&D” that gets written off that wouldn’t be considered research in an academic setting.
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  Those numbers come from NSF, so I assume the definition of "basic research" would align with NSF. The rise in basic research in industry coincides with the rise of technology as a major component of the US economy decades ago. I suspect these are not unrelated. The growth of deep tech investment by the private sector probably has a lot to do with it.