4 ms·

One issue I have not been able to resolve in thinking about the idea of society-funded research has to do with what I'll refer to as "bad" global actors. It is

One issue I have not been able to resolve in thinking about the idea of society-funded research has to do with what I'll refer to as "bad" global actors. It is no secret that China shines for its lack of respect for intellectual property. The same is true for their willingness to steal just about anything from anyone and make it their own. If we, as an open society, fund programs costing billions of dollars we would, in no uncertain terms, be "giving it away" to the Chinese and other bad world players. It's the concept of unfairness when on person in a team does absolutely nothing yet benefits greatly from the work of the rest of the team members. I know I am over-generalizing. Yet, I have to tell you, as an American citizen I despise the idea of investing my tax dollars in something and have it simply given away to other societies who have done nothing to contribute to the cause. Would I like to invest tax dollars to find the cure for cancer and make it globally available? Absolutely. Would I like to see the labs and companies we built as part of that process decimated and driven out of business because the Chinese take the work product we funded and drive costs so far down that our companies crumble under the pressure of our pricing models? Nope. Not interested. Yes, society as a whole would benefit from cheap mass manufacturing of such a drug. And, while that happens, our industry will continue to be shredded by bad players such as China. I don't have all the answers. I certainly don't know what the solution to this one might be.

pixl97 14y ago
At one time we believed in tariffs. If they stole it and made it, at least they would have to pay to bring it back to us. We wouldn't tariff countries/products that respected our rules.
calibraxis 14y ago
The US pursued the same strategy of piracy while it was developing. Any rational country does so, if sufficiently powerful to withstand retaliation from the global superpower. (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/14/business/new-economy-intellectual-property-debate-takes-page-19th-century-america.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/14/business/new-economy-intel...)
pedalpete 14y ago
What examples do you have of the Chinese (or anybody else for that matter) doing this with the innovative high-technology initiatives this article is referring to. China's space program is fairly recent, they didn't steal from Apollo or the Shuttle program immediately and copy it. They are purchasing energy production technology from other countries (US and France if memory serves correctly). If you want to really look at this as a global rather than a local issue, we could consider the Chinese and all other countries as partners. Illinois benefits from California, but you don't complain about state to state transfer of knowledge (or do you? I'm Canadian, I don't think we do). In many cases American companies have labs in China, and according to a contact at Dolby, it isn't because China is cheaper any more, it's because they are good. Very good, and everybody benefits from the collaboration. If you want to look at innovation only for the purpose of lining somebodies pockets, than their is no difference between making a hugely innovative product vs. something people just pay for. But if you want to change the world and have an impact, might as well all be in this together. And I suspect the Chinese spending on education and research is near what the US spends in that regard.
tedsanders 14y ago
I think the worry of giving away research is natural, but misguided. Consider these scenarios: (1) If Earth's population was 1 billion, would it be worthwhile for society to fund research? (2) If Earth's population was 7 billion, but 6 billion are freeloaders, would it still be worthwhile for the 1 billion to fund research? The answer to number (1) is an obvious yes. Even with only 1 billion people, humanity gains when it devotes resources to research. How about the answer to (2)? I think if you answer yes to (1) you have to answer yes to (2). The costs are the same, but the benefits are even greater. Even though freeloading isn't fair, it doesn't mean we shouldn't fund research.
unclebucknasty 14y ago
Your comment and the dilemma you present are very interesting. I think part of the problem is that we have reduced everything to a matter of economics and profit. It has become the measure of value for everything, so much so that intelligent, compassionate people can discuss the value of human life in terms of dollars and jobs. So, I think the problem you suggest is the product of a false choice. That is, IMO if we had a cure for cancer, it is not that we should find it unfair that the "wrong" people might profit. It is that we should expect that no one would profit. Some things should be done for the good of all humanity. Why need there be financial incentive in ending suffering? And, why should there be financial reward in doing so? This is the core problem of a capitalism run amok. Governments the world over should be engaged in benevolent research as an expression of the will of the people they represent, and for the betterment of same. It is, in my view, a grievous mistake that we must always seek a way to commercialize our activity in order to justify it.
- RougeFemme 14y ago
  I wouldn't have a major issue with a company profitting from the cure for cancer. On the other hand, I hate to seethe senior management of said company reaping handsome profits while people without the means to pay for it die without it. And I have major issue with sick people's inability to pay when the initial research was either done by or funded by taxpayer dollars. And then apply that same principle to all the middlemen who handle the drug and add little to no value to it, but still profit handsomely. . .but that's for another thread.
  - unclebucknasty 14y ago
    I think it's a slippery slope though: exactly who should profit and how much profit is too much? Posing those kinds of questions raises the ire of the "free market/profit motive cures everything" crowd that drives our current brand of capitalism. Once we give something over to the machine, we introduce the very problem. IMO, we need to completely rethink what should be left to the markets vs. what we produce as a society for the good of humanity.
    - 14y ago

pixl97 14y ago

At one time we believed in tariffs. If they stole it and made it, at least they would have to pay to bring it back to us. We wouldn't tariff countries/products that respected our rules.

calibraxis 14y ago

The US pursued the same strategy of piracy while it was developing. Any rational country does so, if sufficiently powerful to withstand retaliation from the global superpower. (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/14/business/new-economy-intellectual-property-debate-takes-page-19th-century-america.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/14/business/new-economy-intel...)

pedalpete 14y ago

What examples do you have of the Chinese (or anybody else for that matter) doing this with the innovative high-technology initiatives this article is referring to. China's space program is fairly recent, they didn't steal from Apollo or the Shuttle program immediately and copy it. They are purchasing energy production technology from other countries (US and France if memory serves correctly). If you want to really look at this as a global rather than a local issue, we could consider the Chinese and all other countries as partners. Illinois benefits from California, but you don't complain about state to state transfer of knowledge (or do you? I'm Canadian, I don't think we do). In many cases American companies have labs in China, and according to a contact at Dolby, it isn't because China is cheaper any more, it's because they are good. Very good, and everybody benefits from the collaboration. If you want to look at innovation only for the purpose of lining somebodies pockets, than their is no difference between making a hugely innovative product vs. something people just pay for. But if you want to change the world and have an impact, might as well all be in this together. And I suspect the Chinese spending on education and research is near what the US spends in that regard.

tedsanders 14y ago

I think the worry of giving away research is natural, but misguided. Consider these scenarios: (1) If Earth's population was 1 billion, would it be worthwhile for society to fund research? (2) If Earth's population was 7 billion, but 6 billion are freeloaders, would it still be worthwhile for the 1 billion to fund research? The answer to number (1) is an obvious yes. Even with only 1 billion people, humanity gains when it devotes resources to research. How about the answer to (2)? I think if you answer yes to (1) you have to answer yes to (2). The costs are the same, but the benefits are even greater. Even though freeloading isn't fair, it doesn't mean we shouldn't fund research.

unclebucknasty 14y ago

Your comment and the dilemma you present are very interesting. I think part of the problem is that we have reduced everything to a matter of economics and profit. It has become the measure of value for everything, so much so that intelligent, compassionate people can discuss the value of human life in terms of dollars and jobs. So, I think the problem you suggest is the product of a false choice. That is, IMO if we had a cure for cancer, it is not that we should find it unfair that the "wrong" people might profit. It is that we should expect that no one would profit. Some things should be done for the good of all humanity. Why need there be financial incentive in ending suffering? And, why should there be financial reward in doing so? This is the core problem of a capitalism run amok. Governments the world over should be engaged in benevolent research as an expression of the will of the people they represent, and for the betterment of same. It is, in my view, a grievous mistake that we must always seek a way to commercialize our activity in order to justify it.

RougeFemme 14y ago
I wouldn't have a major issue with a company profitting from the cure for cancer. On the other hand, I hate to seethe senior management of said company reaping handsome profits while people without the means to pay for it die without it. And I have major issue with sick people's inability to pay when the initial research was either done by or funded by taxpayer dollars. And then apply that same principle to all the middlemen who handle the drug and add little to no value to it, but still profit handsomely. . .but that's for another thread.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  I think it's a slippery slope though: exactly who should profit and how much profit is too much? Posing those kinds of questions raises the ire of the "free market/profit motive cures everything" crowd that drives our current brand of capitalism. Once we give something over to the machine, we introduce the very problem. IMO, we need to completely rethink what should be left to the markets vs. what we produce as a society for the good of humanity.
  - 14y ago