5 ms·

It is not as simple/obvious as you may think it is. It depends on what the goals of the govt are. If the govt is trying to encourage progress on cancer drugs, t

by tostitos1979 13y ago

It is not as simple/obvious as you may think it is. It depends on what the goals of the govt are. If the govt is trying to encourage progress on cancer drugs, they can certainly give grants to stimulate that research direction. If the govt said if you get even 1 cent of grant money from us, you can't patent your drug. Well .. few researchers will take that money. The govt can of course fund a new lab that does cancer research. It can choose to make all IP that comes out of this lab public. I think in the former case, there is a bigger multiplier effect/leverage from the same amount of money (without the IP restriction). You need to realize that IP is an artificial monopoly granted by the govt for a purpose.

hdevalence 13y ago
I don't think that the OP doesn't understand what "intellectual property" is, they just disagree with the assessment that it's necessary (or maybe proper) for the government to grant private monopolies on scientific knowledge. You need to realize that people can know what IP is and still disagree with you.
- tostitos1979 13y ago
  Frankly, I am against patents but I understand why they are there :)
- throwawaykf03 13y ago
  Maybe the OP understands what "IP" is, but it seems they do not understand the economics of research or why IP is still applicable to publicly funded research. If one knows the concept of IP but not why it's needed in these situations, one is still arguing from a position of incomplete understanding.
  - sparkie 13y ago
    I understand IP very well, and I disagree with the whole concept. Here I'm just making a point at how stupid the system actually is. As I stated, the government gets rights to use patents funded by taxpayer money, but the taxpayer has no such rights. The government here is actually nothing but a mediator of funds from taxpayer to researcher, yet it acts as if it paid for the research out of it's own pocket.
greenyoda 13y ago
"If the govt said if you get even 1 cent of grant money from us, you can't patent your drug. Well .. few researchers will take that money." And why is that a bad thing? If they have an idea that they think they can make a lot of money by patenting, they're going to do that research anyway with non-government funding (e.g., start a company and raise venture capital). So why waste taxpayer money funding it? Better for the government to fund something like basic scientific research that's not patentable (and on which applied research depends).
- tostitos1979 13y ago
  The viewpoint "if the govt pays for it, it should be free" ... doesn't sound right to me. Let me offer why. This is equivalent to saying, if you raise VC funding, the VCs should get all the wealth you create since they put up the money.
  - sparkie 13y ago
    A VC can choose who they fund and under what terms - most importantly, they can choose not to fund something. The same isn't true for taxpayer funded research - it's money that government has forcibly taken from people to fund some arbitrary research in which the taxpayer has no say whatsoever.
    - HarryHirsch 13y ago
      I was with you until you said "arbitrary research in which the taxpayer has no say whatsoever". The people on the NIH/NSF/whatnot panels are as a rule very aware of their duty towards the taxpayer and do their best to allocate the scarce funds to whoever deserves them most.
      - sparkie 13y ago
        The taxpayer had no say in whether he wanted his money stolen so that some other guys can decide who can waste much of it. I was making it clear that this is nothing like a VC model, which is voluntary. If we were to make the comparison, it would be that people could chose themselves what research, if any, to fund. The issue with panels allocating taxpayer money, is that their interest is still in government. That is, they will fund research in which government has an interest or is neutral, and consequently, any research which is potentially harmful to government is scrapped (even if it would be beneficial to the taxpayer.) One might not think there's a distinction between what benefits the government and what benefits the taxpayer if one believes in the fairy tale that governments exist to benefit the people.
betterunix 13y ago
"If the govt said if you get even 1 cent of grant money from us, you can't patent your drug. Well .. few researchers will take that money" I doubt that -- researchers do not have many sources of funding available to them. Grant money basically dictates the direction of research in the majority of fields. Grants come with all kinds of annoying strings attached (in grad school, I was once paid from a grant that specifically forbade us from purchasing desktops or laptops; we could, however, purchase rack mounted servers) and researchers still take them. What you need to understand is that researchers are usually more interested in padding their CVs than in getting patent rights. A professor trying to get tenure needs to bring in grant money, publish papers, and graduate some PhD students (who in turn need to be publish papers, etc.). There is not much room for turning down funding, just like there is not much room for pursuing lines of work that the government is not willing to fund.

hdevalence 13y ago

I don't think that the OP doesn't understand what "intellectual property" is, they just disagree with the assessment that it's necessary (or maybe proper) for the government to grant private monopolies on scientific knowledge. You need to realize that people can know what IP is and still disagree with you.

tostitos1979 13y ago
Frankly, I am against patents but I understand why they are there :)
throwawaykf03 13y ago
Maybe the OP understands what "IP" is, but it seems they do not understand the economics of research or why IP is still applicable to publicly funded research. If one knows the concept of IP but not why it's needed in these situations, one is still arguing from a position of incomplete understanding.
- sparkie 13y ago
  I understand IP very well, and I disagree with the whole concept. Here I'm just making a point at how stupid the system actually is. As I stated, the government gets rights to use patents funded by taxpayer money, but the taxpayer has no such rights. The government here is actually nothing but a mediator of funds from taxpayer to researcher, yet it acts as if it paid for the research out of it's own pocket.

greenyoda 13y ago

"If the govt said if you get even 1 cent of grant money from us, you can't patent your drug. Well .. few researchers will take that money." And why is that a bad thing? If they have an idea that they think they can make a lot of money by patenting, they're going to do that research anyway with non-government funding (e.g., start a company and raise venture capital). So why waste taxpayer money funding it? Better for the government to fund something like basic scientific research that's not patentable (and on which applied research depends).

tostitos1979 13y ago
The viewpoint "if the govt pays for it, it should be free" ... doesn't sound right to me. Let me offer why. This is equivalent to saying, if you raise VC funding, the VCs should get all the wealth you create since they put up the money.
- sparkie 13y ago
  A VC can choose who they fund and under what terms - most importantly, they can choose not to fund something. The same isn't true for taxpayer funded research - it's money that government has forcibly taken from people to fund some arbitrary research in which the taxpayer has no say whatsoever.
  - HarryHirsch 13y ago
    I was with you until you said "arbitrary research in which the taxpayer has no say whatsoever". The people on the NIH/NSF/whatnot panels are as a rule very aware of their duty towards the taxpayer and do their best to allocate the scarce funds to whoever deserves them most.
    - sparkie 13y ago
      The taxpayer had no say in whether he wanted his money stolen so that some other guys can decide who can waste much of it. I was making it clear that this is nothing like a VC model, which is voluntary. If we were to make the comparison, it would be that people could chose themselves what research, if any, to fund. The issue with panels allocating taxpayer money, is that their interest is still in government. That is, they will fund research in which government has an interest or is neutral, and consequently, any research which is potentially harmful to government is scrapped (even if it would be beneficial to the taxpayer.) One might not think there's a distinction between what benefits the government and what benefits the taxpayer if one believes in the fairy tale that governments exist to benefit the people.

betterunix 13y ago

"If the govt said if you get even 1 cent of grant money from us, you can't patent your drug. Well .. few researchers will take that money" I doubt that -- researchers do not have many sources of funding available to them. Grant money basically dictates the direction of research in the majority of fields. Grants come with all kinds of annoying strings attached (in grad school, I was once paid from a grant that specifically forbade us from purchasing desktops or laptops; we could, however, purchase rack mounted servers) and researchers still take them. What you need to understand is that researchers are usually more interested in padding their CVs than in getting patent rights. A professor trying to get tenure needs to bring in grant money, publish papers, and graduate some PhD students (who in turn need to be publish papers, etc.). There is not much room for turning down funding, just like there is not much room for pursuing lines of work that the government is not willing to fund.