5 ms·

> realize that you will most likely end up in industry. > Things are quite bleak right now... you think it's bleak that one's research now has to be profitable

by jsbg 1y ago

> realize that you will most likely end up in industry. > Things are quite bleak right now... you think it's bleak that one's research now has to be profitable rather than being subsidized by people paying taxes?

russdill 1y ago
Yes.
- jsbg 1y ago
  what are your thoughts on the replication crisis?
BowBun 1y ago
If it results in megacorps 'forcing' papers that misrepresent the truth for their own gains, yeah that's pretty bleak. Think weed killers, sugar, etc.
- jsbg 1y ago
  this is a major misperception of what private research output is actually like
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Yes, and no. It's no secret that corporations will purposefully play ignorant when a profitable product has safety concerns. J&J kept their asbestos baby powder out of the public eye for 50 years. 3M knew about forever chemicals in their adhesives for decades. Bayer knew their drug had been infected with HIV and they sold it anyway. That's not to say all private research is untrustworthy. But, we should be skeptical.
fzeroracer 1y ago
Why does research have to be profitable? There are many, many smaller diseases and cancers which affect a small subset of the population which will never be 'profitable', but it's important to research for the sake of scientific progress. I fundamentally do not understand how one can be so enthralled by capitalism that they believe we should not research anything unless a shareholder can generate a profit somewhere along the way.
- jsbg 1y ago
  > Why does research have to be profitable? Because it's the only way to get a job in industry. I find it repugnant that theoretical scientists feel entitled to some of my income.
  - mandmandam 1y ago
    Theoretical scientists made your income possible. The algorithms behind modern finance, logistics, and computing stem from abstract mathematics. Quantum mechanics laid the foundation for semiconductors, the internet, your smartphone etc. Even GPS depends on Einstein’s general relativity, a theory once attacked for being too esoteric and detached from reality. Do people not understand the concept of a long term investment, even if they can't grasp the importance of understanding for its own sake? What is it?
vunderba 1y ago
Didn't the space race help usher in consumer technology such as CAT scanners, GPS, digital imaging, etc.?
- jsbg 1y ago
  How do you know those scientists and engineers would have contributed less to society had they been employed based on supply and demand instead of central planning?
  - acdha 1y ago
    Using an inaccurate phrase like “central planning” calls your motives into question. That’s designed to conjure up scary images of Cold War-era Russia or China, but it’s really not how things work in a democracy where democratically-elected representatives allocate money based on their constituents’ interests, and hire experts in their fields to disburse those funds to private researchers based on the recommendations of other private experts, and the resulting research is often greatly profitable for private companies competing in the market (nobody bought Air Force microchips or had to license CRISPR from the president’s nephew). One thing all of the major advances which shaped the 20th century have in common is that they required huge upfront spending which even large companies couldn’t afford. Smart people will contribute to society in various ways but creating those opportunities allows that to happen more frequently and on a larger scale.
    - jsbg 1y ago
      > but it’s really not how things work in a democracy The US is very purposefully not a democracy. > Using an inaccurate phrase like “central planning” calls your motives into question. My motives are transparently not to have the money I earn taken from me to subsidize theoretical science research.
  - beej71 1y ago
    Short-term versus long-term gains. Businesses have the short term covered, but they're rarely going in on high-risk/low-reward (monetarily) research. So supply and demand can get stuck at these local maxima. Central planning can think longer term. Maybe it doesn't pay off, but sometimes it does. And when it does, it can shake us free of that maximum. This works, and is why Bell Labs and its peers existed. For reasons I don't fully understand, they stopped doing this, largely. Maybe because it's difficult to quantify those long-term gains. Finally, those scientists get to choose where they are employed. So if the private sector wants them to do this work, they can hire them.
kashunstva 1y ago
> you think it's bleak that one's research now has to be profitable … ? The connection between new knowledge and profit is often indirect and cannot be clearly predicted beforehand. And, why must something be profitable in order to justify it? Are there no valid outcomes other than profit?
- jsbg 1y ago
  > why must something be profitable in order to justify it? Are there no valid outcomes other than profit? Because if it isn't profitable then it needs to be subsidized to continue. Given the replication crisis I don't think it's most people's priority to use part of their paycheck for this.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > I don't think it's most people's priority to use part of their paycheck for this Why don't people prioritize increasing their income? Like, they could look at wealth inequality and consider that if they owned some of the wealth around them then they could instead generate income from it, which might obviate their desire for lower taxes because they're able to pay their bills with a surplus of savings. What's the purpose of destroying science funding when the problem is a lack of personal wealth?
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    All hail the mighty dollar. Some of us believe that there are things that are good for society that are worth the money. Medicaid doesn't make a profit. I'm glad people don't die in abject poverty quite as often as they used to.
  - intended 1y ago
    How do you think the replication crisis gets solved? By doing less science? Or by doing more replication?
thisisit 1y ago
> you think it's bleak that one's research now has to be profitable rather than being subsidized by people paying taxes? I honestly don't understand why people don't get this - Government is not supposed to be "profitable". The whole reason to collect taxes is for good of the society. It sounds like your view is that rural towns, which are already in crisis, should be left to rot away because it isn't "profitable". The callous and lack of empathy is seriously astounding.
- jsbg 1y ago
  > The whole reason to collect taxes is for good of the society. There are infinitely many things that are marginally good for society and finitely many resources to accomplish them. Spending on irreplicable research has an opportunity cost that most taxpayers wouldn’t choose. Framing it as empathy to forcibly take their income and subsidize lofty science is ironic.
  - beej71 1y ago
    Another way to look at this is that a country that only spends research money on profitable ventures is going to lose to a country that spends exploratory research money. I, for one, willingly give my cash. You don't get breakthroughs by being timid with this.
    - jsbg 1y ago
      assuming the government is already maximizing tax revenue on the laffer curve, what would you be willing to give up so that it could spend more on theoretical science research?
      - beej71 1y ago
        It's almost certainly not maximizing tax revenue, but I'd trade some defense for research.
  - thisisit 1y ago
    >most taxpayers wouldn’t choose How do you know that? Tax paying is a larger subset of people who voted in this election because migrants also pay taxes. The popular vote count was 49.8%. So, however you want to dice it "most taxpayers" aren't choosing here. > forcibly take their income and subsidize lofty science is ironic Forcibly take? That is a right-wing point you seem to be repeating without seeing the irony. The whole point of electing a government is that it can allocate taxpayers money maybe to causes you don't agree with. If government reallocating resources is "forcibly take" then "most taxpayers" - the 50.8% people who didn't vote for this government can also claim their taxes are being "forcibly taken" by this government as well? Or is it that right wing voices matter more than others? As I said lack of empathy and callousness is a hallmark of this government and its supporters.
anigbrowl 1y ago
I do, and I'm tired of pretending it's not. If I could legally hypothecate my entire tax payment to science funding, I would. Science research has a high overall economic multiplier and frankly I'm sick of how one political tendency in the US has chosen to clothe itself in ignorance for political gain. It's contemptible.
- jsbg 1y ago
  > If I could legally hypothecate my entire tax payment to science funding That is literally the opposite of how taxes work though. Other people decide how your money is spent. If your financial situation was that of the US govt [0] I also don't think you would act the way you say with your earnings. [0] https://www.usdebtclock.org/ https://www.usdebtclock.org/

by jsbg 1y ago

russdill 1y ago

Yes.

jsbg 1y ago
what are your thoughts on the replication crisis?

BowBun 1y ago

If it results in megacorps 'forcing' papers that misrepresent the truth for their own gains, yeah that's pretty bleak. Think weed killers, sugar, etc.

jsbg 1y ago
this is a major misperception of what private research output is actually like
- const_cast 1y ago
  Yes, and no. It's no secret that corporations will purposefully play ignorant when a profitable product has safety concerns. J&J kept their asbestos baby powder out of the public eye for 50 years. 3M knew about forever chemicals in their adhesives for decades. Bayer knew their drug had been infected with HIV and they sold it anyway. That's not to say all private research is untrustworthy. But, we should be skeptical.

fzeroracer 1y ago

Why does research have to be profitable? There are many, many smaller diseases and cancers which affect a small subset of the population which will never be 'profitable', but it's important to research for the sake of scientific progress. I fundamentally do not understand how one can be so enthralled by capitalism that they believe we should not research anything unless a shareholder can generate a profit somewhere along the way.

jsbg 1y ago
> Why does research have to be profitable? Because it's the only way to get a job in industry. I find it repugnant that theoretical scientists feel entitled to some of my income.
- mandmandam 1y ago
  Theoretical scientists made your income possible. The algorithms behind modern finance, logistics, and computing stem from abstract mathematics. Quantum mechanics laid the foundation for semiconductors, the internet, your smartphone etc. Even GPS depends on Einstein’s general relativity, a theory once attacked for being too esoteric and detached from reality. Do people not understand the concept of a long term investment, even if they can't grasp the importance of understanding for its own sake? What is it?

vunderba 1y ago

Didn't the space race help usher in consumer technology such as CAT scanners, GPS, digital imaging, etc.?

jsbg 1y ago
How do you know those scientists and engineers would have contributed less to society had they been employed based on supply and demand instead of central planning?
- acdha 1y ago
  Using an inaccurate phrase like “central planning” calls your motives into question. That’s designed to conjure up scary images of Cold War-era Russia or China, but it’s really not how things work in a democracy where democratically-elected representatives allocate money based on their constituents’ interests, and hire experts in their fields to disburse those funds to private researchers based on the recommendations of other private experts, and the resulting research is often greatly profitable for private companies competing in the market (nobody bought Air Force microchips or had to license CRISPR from the president’s nephew). One thing all of the major advances which shaped the 20th century have in common is that they required huge upfront spending which even large companies couldn’t afford. Smart people will contribute to society in various ways but creating those opportunities allows that to happen more frequently and on a larger scale.
  - jsbg 1y ago
    > but it’s really not how things work in a democracy The US is very purposefully not a democracy. > Using an inaccurate phrase like “central planning” calls your motives into question. My motives are transparently not to have the money I earn taken from me to subsidize theoretical science research.
- beej71 1y ago
  Short-term versus long-term gains. Businesses have the short term covered, but they're rarely going in on high-risk/low-reward (monetarily) research. So supply and demand can get stuck at these local maxima. Central planning can think longer term. Maybe it doesn't pay off, but sometimes it does. And when it does, it can shake us free of that maximum. This works, and is why Bell Labs and its peers existed. For reasons I don't fully understand, they stopped doing this, largely. Maybe because it's difficult to quantify those long-term gains. Finally, those scientists get to choose where they are employed. So if the private sector wants them to do this work, they can hire them.

kashunstva 1y ago

> you think it's bleak that one's research now has to be profitable … ? The connection between new knowledge and profit is often indirect and cannot be clearly predicted beforehand. And, why must something be profitable in order to justify it? Are there no valid outcomes other than profit?

jsbg 1y ago
> why must something be profitable in order to justify it? Are there no valid outcomes other than profit? Because if it isn't profitable then it needs to be subsidized to continue. Given the replication crisis I don't think it's most people's priority to use part of their paycheck for this.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > I don't think it's most people's priority to use part of their paycheck for this Why don't people prioritize increasing their income? Like, they could look at wealth inequality and consider that if they owned some of the wealth around them then they could instead generate income from it, which might obviate their desire for lower taxes because they're able to pay their bills with a surplus of savings. What's the purpose of destroying science funding when the problem is a lack of personal wealth?
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  All hail the mighty dollar. Some of us believe that there are things that are good for society that are worth the money. Medicaid doesn't make a profit. I'm glad people don't die in abject poverty quite as often as they used to.
- intended 1y ago
  How do you think the replication crisis gets solved? By doing less science? Or by doing more replication?

thisisit 1y ago

> you think it's bleak that one's research now has to be profitable rather than being subsidized by people paying taxes? I honestly don't understand why people don't get this - Government is not supposed to be "profitable". The whole reason to collect taxes is for good of the society. It sounds like your view is that rural towns, which are already in crisis, should be left to rot away because it isn't "profitable". The callous and lack of empathy is seriously astounding.

jsbg 1y ago
> The whole reason to collect taxes is for good of the society. There are infinitely many things that are marginally good for society and finitely many resources to accomplish them. Spending on irreplicable research has an opportunity cost that most taxpayers wouldn’t choose. Framing it as empathy to forcibly take their income and subsidize lofty science is ironic.
- beej71 1y ago
  Another way to look at this is that a country that only spends research money on profitable ventures is going to lose to a country that spends exploratory research money. I, for one, willingly give my cash. You don't get breakthroughs by being timid with this.
  - jsbg 1y ago
    assuming the government is already maximizing tax revenue on the laffer curve, what would you be willing to give up so that it could spend more on theoretical science research?
    - beej71 1y ago
      It's almost certainly not maximizing tax revenue, but I'd trade some defense for research.
- thisisit 1y ago
  >most taxpayers wouldn’t choose How do you know that? Tax paying is a larger subset of people who voted in this election because migrants also pay taxes. The popular vote count was 49.8%. So, however you want to dice it "most taxpayers" aren't choosing here. > forcibly take their income and subsidize lofty science is ironic Forcibly take? That is a right-wing point you seem to be repeating without seeing the irony. The whole point of electing a government is that it can allocate taxpayers money maybe to causes you don't agree with. If government reallocating resources is "forcibly take" then "most taxpayers" - the 50.8% people who didn't vote for this government can also claim their taxes are being "forcibly taken" by this government as well? Or is it that right wing voices matter more than others? As I said lack of empathy and callousness is a hallmark of this government and its supporters.

anigbrowl 1y ago

I do, and I'm tired of pretending it's not. If I could legally hypothecate my entire tax payment to science funding, I would. Science research has a high overall economic multiplier and frankly I'm sick of how one political tendency in the US has chosen to clothe itself in ignorance for political gain. It's contemptible.

jsbg 1y ago
> If I could legally hypothecate my entire tax payment to science funding That is literally the opposite of how taxes work though. Other people decide how your money is spent. If your financial situation was that of the US govt [0] I also don't think you would act the way you say with your earnings. [0] https://www.usdebtclock.org/ https://www.usdebtclock.org/