3 ms·

You think you could fundraise billions of dollars for science from private sources? You're talking about a $100B (spread out over the next decade) bill on the s

You think you could fundraise billions of dollars for science from private sources? You're talking about a $100B (spread out over the next decade) bill on the sidewalk. I don't think there's anything less realistic than the idea that there would be that amount of money available for the asking but unclaimed...

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dsign 1y ago
I don't agree with the GP either, but I'm pretty sure there are more than 100 B of private capital which are, on the big scheme of things, being spent on quite frivolous things.. if at all. Which reinforces your point: some things good for society as a whole need to be funded by taxes.
- biophysboy 1y ago
  The key is that they are investing in frivolous things rather than fundamental medical research because the latter is higher risk and lower reward in money terms. As you say, its precisely the opposite when the metric is future human health.
h3lp 1y ago
Well, historically, we used to have a robust industrial R&D that even did basic research: Bell Labs (astrophysics, semiconductor physics), IBM, Xerox, RCA, Kodak and many other; even Ford had an R&D lab with physicists. Their record was quite impressive, as we all know. The weird trick that made that work was a tax policy that supported that. IIRC, R&D was expense as opposed to amortization, together with a laxer trust regime that allowed large profits that could pay for all that.
- whatshisface 1y ago
  Those are postwar examples, which occurred in unison with the academic funding boom, the space race, etc. The way it worked was you'd have public funding for basic facts ("aluminum is 2.7 times denser than water"), and then scientists would be hired by companies to apply those facts. The revenue model doesn't work out for monetizing basic facts, so to have an advanced industry you need both systems of funding.
- vmchale 1y ago
  Xerox was when the US was on the up-trend, not committing economic suicide at the whim of a mad king.
- const_cast 1y ago
  Well all those companies are dead now... so... clearly spending all that money on research didn't really pan out for them.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

dsign 1y ago

I don't agree with the GP either, but I'm pretty sure there are more than 100 B of private capital which are, on the big scheme of things, being spent on quite frivolous things.. if at all. Which reinforces your point: some things good for society as a whole need to be funded by taxes.

biophysboy 1y ago
The key is that they are investing in frivolous things rather than fundamental medical research because the latter is higher risk and lower reward in money terms. As you say, its precisely the opposite when the metric is future human health.

h3lp 1y ago

Well, historically, we used to have a robust industrial R&D that even did basic research: Bell Labs (astrophysics, semiconductor physics), IBM, Xerox, RCA, Kodak and many other; even Ford had an R&D lab with physicists. Their record was quite impressive, as we all know. The weird trick that made that work was a tax policy that supported that. IIRC, R&D was expense as opposed to amortization, together with a laxer trust regime that allowed large profits that could pay for all that.

whatshisface 1y ago
Those are postwar examples, which occurred in unison with the academic funding boom, the space race, etc. The way it worked was you'd have public funding for basic facts ("aluminum is 2.7 times denser than water"), and then scientists would be hired by companies to apply those facts. The revenue model doesn't work out for monetizing basic facts, so to have an advanced industry you need both systems of funding.
vmchale 1y ago
Xerox was when the US was on the up-trend, not committing economic suicide at the whim of a mad king.
const_cast 1y ago
Well all those companies are dead now... so... clearly spending all that money on research didn't really pan out for them.