5 ms·

Please explain how cutting science and medical research helps the country. While you're at it, I'm also curious how you think cutting profitable departments (s

Please explain how cutting science and medical research helps the country. While you're at it, I'm also curious how you think cutting profitable departments (such as CPFB) or white-collar law enforcement helps anyone other than the president's friends.

goodluckchuck 1y ago
Public research is just government subsidies to corporations, which acquire IP for pennies on the dollar for their own profits while leaving taxpayers with the chaff. It’s a net loss for the public good who has to pay twice.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > government subsidies No, public research is an investment. The job of the government is to spend money on things that help the country's people. That includes roads, the military, and science.
- searine 1y ago
  Research is public funded because it creates public good. Most basic research is not profitable which is why it is in the publics best interests to subsidize it rather than rely in the whims of corporations. Even then ROI for taxpayers is staggeringly huge in the long run. Calling it a "net-loss" is ... well. It is flat-earth level thinking.
- biophysboy 1y ago
  There is a very long and expensive path from basic research IP to a profitable drug. Private pharma companies already bear the risk of the drug development pipeline, which has a very low probability of success and takes many years. Adding fundamental research to that pipeline would make these companies a riskier investment.
  - goodluckchuck 1y ago
    This article is about NASA, and the existence of a large and successful pharmaceutical company industry proves that when there is a public good to be achieved, there is private funding for the research. The OP asked for an answer, and the fallacy I’m trying to point out is this assumption that “all” research is generally worthwhile. And I don’t mean just that there are exceptions, but swaths of topics and institutions and researchers and methods that aren’t really adding anything of value. Some areas, like aerospace, have been the focus of intense research for a long long time. This is to the point where SpaceX has been able to walk in and build a space program from scratch. I don’t mean to minimize their hard work, but it just shows that we’re not in the 1930s anymore. It makes sense that you should occasionally adjust your priorities from time to time based on your needs.
    - hackyhacky 1y ago
      No one said that all research is of value. The problem with basic research is that you don't know whether it will be of value untill you do the research. All research is potentially of value. The risk of such research is why the government has historically supported it and why so many world-changing ideas come out of gov research programs. Private investment is risk-averse: they will support reliable short term gains over dubious long term breakthroughs. That's fine, but history has shown it's not the best way.
    - biophysboy 1y ago
      Apologies for the tangents away from NASA - I was just replying to one of the parent comments that mentioned medical research I don't think all research is worthwhile; I think grant proposals should get shot down if the lab/idea isn't up to snuff. I'm happy for companies to do R&D! There's lot of examples over the years (Bell labs, Google, etc). I just don't think it makes sense in high risk situations with long reward lag times. The exceptions will be the really, really big companies flush with cash, which has its own issues.

goodluckchuck 1y ago

Public research is just government subsidies to corporations, which acquire IP for pennies on the dollar for their own profits while leaving taxpayers with the chaff. It’s a net loss for the public good who has to pay twice.

hackyhacky 1y ago
> government subsidies No, public research is an investment. The job of the government is to spend money on things that help the country's people. That includes roads, the military, and science.
searine 1y ago
Research is public funded because it creates public good. Most basic research is not profitable which is why it is in the publics best interests to subsidize it rather than rely in the whims of corporations. Even then ROI for taxpayers is staggeringly huge in the long run. Calling it a "net-loss" is ... well. It is flat-earth level thinking.
biophysboy 1y ago
There is a very long and expensive path from basic research IP to a profitable drug. Private pharma companies already bear the risk of the drug development pipeline, which has a very low probability of success and takes many years. Adding fundamental research to that pipeline would make these companies a riskier investment.
- goodluckchuck 1y ago
  This article is about NASA, and the existence of a large and successful pharmaceutical company industry proves that when there is a public good to be achieved, there is private funding for the research. The OP asked for an answer, and the fallacy I’m trying to point out is this assumption that “all” research is generally worthwhile. And I don’t mean just that there are exceptions, but swaths of topics and institutions and researchers and methods that aren’t really adding anything of value. Some areas, like aerospace, have been the focus of intense research for a long long time. This is to the point where SpaceX has been able to walk in and build a space program from scratch. I don’t mean to minimize their hard work, but it just shows that we’re not in the 1930s anymore. It makes sense that you should occasionally adjust your priorities from time to time based on your needs.
  - hackyhacky 1y ago
    No one said that all research is of value. The problem with basic research is that you don't know whether it will be of value untill you do the research. All research is potentially of value. The risk of such research is why the government has historically supported it and why so many world-changing ideas come out of gov research programs. Private investment is risk-averse: they will support reliable short term gains over dubious long term breakthroughs. That's fine, but history has shown it's not the best way.
  - biophysboy 1y ago
    Apologies for the tangents away from NASA - I was just replying to one of the parent comments that mentioned medical research I don't think all research is worthwhile; I think grant proposals should get shot down if the lab/idea isn't up to snuff. I'm happy for companies to do R&D! There's lot of examples over the years (Bell labs, Google, etc). I just don't think it makes sense in high risk situations with long reward lag times. The exceptions will be the really, really big companies flush with cash, which has its own issues.