5 ms·

An open question.... Are the scientific and philanthropic directions of wealthy individuals that much worse than our government? Remember - the US government

An open question.... Are the scientific and philanthropic directions of wealthy individuals that much worse than our government? Remember - the US government doesn't fund stem cell research.

Tloewald 12y ago
The fundamental problem here is the rise of anti-scientific sentiment in a large segment of the US population.
- mathattack 12y ago
  All the more reason to take science out of the hands of the people they elect.
  - BrandonMarc 12y ago
    This kinda makes sense. If you don't want to be subject to the whims of the US taxpayer, or the corrupting influence of Congresscritters / K Street, then you need to go elsewhere (charities, individuals, businesses) to get funding for your research. Of course, educating taxpayers would be helpful, so they can make better decisions. Along with educating Congress critters, and as far as K Street goes, either finding sympathy (unlikely) or planning to send some of your money there (more likely to work). Compared to those 3 challenges, finding a benefactor sounds a whole lot easier!
    - hackuser 12y ago
      US government research funding decisions are made by scientists, not politicians or taxpayers. Also, I don't know that 'benefactors' are any less corrupt than politicians or lobbyists (if we can paint any group with such a broad brush).
      - Tloewald 12y ago
        The decisions are made by scientists, but they're subject to hard restrictions (e.g. no funding for stem cell research) and behind the scenes political pressure.
  - yongjik 12y ago
    ...and into the hands of those who got rich selling stuff to the very same people?
Multics 12y ago
In a recent article from The Guardian titled, 'Scientists threaten to boycott €1.2bn Human Brain Project', there's the following: 'The world's largest project to unravel the mysteries of the human brain has been thrown into crisis with more than 100 leading researchers threatening to boycott the effort amid accusations of mismanagement and fears that it is doomed to failure.' And. 'But it proved controversial from the start. Many researchers refused to join on the grounds that it was far too premature to attempt a simulation of the entire human brain in a computer. Now some claim the project is taking the wrong approach, wastes money and risks a backlash against neuroscience if it fails to deliver.' €1.2bn could solve any number of problems. And in a free market that's how the resources would be put to use. Solving human problems. Instead, there's a grand spectacle. Many wealthy individuals got that way via judicious resource allocation. The same can't be said of the monumental leaders of our fine countries. They got that way via looking good in public. To expect them to excel at speech giving and resource allocation is quite the ask!
- hackuser 12y ago
  I'm not sure what one project demonstrates, even if we take a news report at face value. There also are many successes; we're using one now to discuss this. > €1.2bn could solve any number of problems. And in a free market that's how the resources would be put to use. Solving human problems. Instead, there's a grand spectacle. I think this argument idealizes the "free market". * There is plenty of waste and spectacle there too -- look at other news headlines, or just remember our recent financial crisis * The 'free market' doesn't exist. First, it's an amalgam of an incredible number and diversity of people and organizations. Second, it's not free; I was trying to think of examples of social goods not funded at all by taxpayers (for the point below), but it's hard to name any. And many 'free market' companies get tax breaks and other support from government (EDIT: including laws and regulations made in their favor). * The marketplace does not care prioritize solving human problems; it prioritizes money and power. Sometimes that happens to solve problems (discovering a new vaccine, clean energy), sometimes it happens to cause them (increasing the cost of vaccines, climate change), sometimes it's just money for money's sake (slashing a ms off response time in computerized securities trading).
skosuri 12y ago
The government is the dominant funder of stem cell research post-Bush (In addition to state funding of stem cell research like inNY, TX, & CA). For example, see http://stemcells.nih.gov/Pages/Default.aspx http://stemcells.nih.gov/Pages/Default.aspx I think the bigger issue is that private philanthropy of science is at least ~2 orders of magnitude smaller than yearly philanthropic donations. The US spends ~$100B/year, while I would be surprised if private philanthropy totals $1B/year to R&D. Commercial R&D expenditures on the other hand are probably higher in aggregate. Thus the role of private philanthropy on a lot of research has been catalytic funding for new ideas.

An open question.... Are the scientific and philanthropic directions of wealthy individuals that much worse than our government? Remember - the US government doesn't fund stem cell research.

Tloewald 12y ago

The fundamental problem here is the rise of anti-scientific sentiment in a large segment of the US population.

mathattack 12y ago
All the more reason to take science out of the hands of the people they elect.
- BrandonMarc 12y ago
  This kinda makes sense. If you don't want to be subject to the whims of the US taxpayer, or the corrupting influence of Congresscritters / K Street, then you need to go elsewhere (charities, individuals, businesses) to get funding for your research. Of course, educating taxpayers would be helpful, so they can make better decisions. Along with educating Congress critters, and as far as K Street goes, either finding sympathy (unlikely) or planning to send some of your money there (more likely to work). Compared to those 3 challenges, finding a benefactor sounds a whole lot easier!
  - hackuser 12y ago
    US government research funding decisions are made by scientists, not politicians or taxpayers. Also, I don't know that 'benefactors' are any less corrupt than politicians or lobbyists (if we can paint any group with such a broad brush).
    - Tloewald 12y ago
      The decisions are made by scientists, but they're subject to hard restrictions (e.g. no funding for stem cell research) and behind the scenes political pressure.
- yongjik 12y ago
  ...and into the hands of those who got rich selling stuff to the very same people?

Multics 12y ago

In a recent article from The Guardian titled, 'Scientists threaten to boycott €1.2bn Human Brain Project', there's the following: 'The world's largest project to unravel the mysteries of the human brain has been thrown into crisis with more than 100 leading researchers threatening to boycott the effort amid accusations of mismanagement and fears that it is doomed to failure.' And. 'But it proved controversial from the start. Many researchers refused to join on the grounds that it was far too premature to attempt a simulation of the entire human brain in a computer. Now some claim the project is taking the wrong approach, wastes money and risks a backlash against neuroscience if it fails to deliver.' €1.2bn could solve any number of problems. And in a free market that's how the resources would be put to use. Solving human problems. Instead, there's a grand spectacle. Many wealthy individuals got that way via judicious resource allocation. The same can't be said of the monumental leaders of our fine countries. They got that way via looking good in public. To expect them to excel at speech giving and resource allocation is quite the ask!

hackuser 12y ago
I'm not sure what one project demonstrates, even if we take a news report at face value. There also are many successes; we're using one now to discuss this. > €1.2bn could solve any number of problems. And in a free market that's how the resources would be put to use. Solving human problems. Instead, there's a grand spectacle. I think this argument idealizes the "free market". * There is plenty of waste and spectacle there too -- look at other news headlines, or just remember our recent financial crisis * The 'free market' doesn't exist. First, it's an amalgam of an incredible number and diversity of people and organizations. Second, it's not free; I was trying to think of examples of social goods not funded at all by taxpayers (for the point below), but it's hard to name any. And many 'free market' companies get tax breaks and other support from government (EDIT: including laws and regulations made in their favor). * The marketplace does not care prioritize solving human problems; it prioritizes money and power. Sometimes that happens to solve problems (discovering a new vaccine, clean energy), sometimes it happens to cause them (increasing the cost of vaccines, climate change), sometimes it's just money for money's sake (slashing a ms off response time in computerized securities trading).

skosuri 12y ago

The government is the dominant funder of stem cell research post-Bush (In addition to state funding of stem cell research like inNY, TX, & CA). For example, see http://stemcells.nih.gov/Pages/Default.aspx http://stemcells.nih.gov/Pages/Default.aspx I think the bigger issue is that private philanthropy of science is at least ~2 orders of magnitude smaller than yearly philanthropic donations. The US spends ~$100B/year, while I would be surprised if private philanthropy totals $1B/year to R&D. Commercial R&D expenditures on the other hand are probably higher in aggregate. Thus the role of private philanthropy on a lot of research has been catalytic funding for new ideas.