4 ms·

There are plenty of research opportunities that are speculative, or niche, enough that they wouldn't overcome the net present value of any third-party commercia

by HillRat 12y ago

There are plenty of research opportunities that are speculative, or niche, enough that they wouldn't overcome the net present value of any third-party commercial investment. Of these, a not-insignificant number are likely to become keystone technologies at some point in the future, but rarely will it make economic sense to put cash in it early, rather than invest elsewhere and later use the returns on that to get a position in any future market. Some companies -- Google, obviously, or Bell Labs back in the day, or companies run by well-heeled visionaries like Musk -- are willing to sink cash into high-risk research, but in general Google is going to see more returns out of incrementally improving AdWords rather than developing self-driving cars. The other thing to think about is that R&D doesn't just "skate to where the puck will be," it actually places the puck on the ice. It takes fundamental and/or high-risk research to create these kinds of opportunities, which means that, in a world where markets solely dictate research objectives, a lot of potential advancements will be left on the table as long as companies have other, profitable, avenues of investment. Which is why we need government funding, though not government control, of research -- but that's probably a discussion for another time.

dnautics 12y ago
"Which is why we need government funding, though not government control, of research" Without accountability (which is what you mean by 'government control'), all you will have is crony funding, and a downward-spiraling quality of work as effort goes toward scientific rent-seeking instead of real scientific product. This problem is inextricable. In order to have accountability, you have to have benchmarks, which really means that the only type of science funding the government is consistently good at is translational, with defined goals. A good example is the moonshot. If your claim is that government will politicize science, well then, the problem is with demanding that government fund science in the first place. It is a ridiculous position of entitlement to demand money, obtained from taxpayers who have little choice to comply, with nothing in exchange. For an excellent counterexample to your assertion, consider Peter Mitchell. He created an private, nonprofit science research organization very much dedicated to a 'basic science' question and solved a fundamental question in biochemistry: How does the cell generate energy? Although there is no way that industry would have funded this, there was also no way that government would have funded it either. He won a Nobel Prize for his work. Do not make the mistake of conflating 'private' with 'for-profit'. This is a false dichotomy that overlooks important social efforts, such as the Polio Vaccines.

by HillRat 12y ago

dnautics 12y ago

"Which is why we need government funding, though not government control, of research" Without accountability (which is what you mean by 'government control'), all you will have is crony funding, and a downward-spiraling quality of work as effort goes toward scientific rent-seeking instead of real scientific product. This problem is inextricable. In order to have accountability, you have to have benchmarks, which really means that the only type of science funding the government is consistently good at is translational, with defined goals. A good example is the moonshot. If your claim is that government will politicize science, well then, the problem is with demanding that government fund science in the first place. It is a ridiculous position of entitlement to demand money, obtained from taxpayers who have little choice to comply, with nothing in exchange. For an excellent counterexample to your assertion, consider Peter Mitchell. He created an private, nonprofit science research organization very much dedicated to a 'basic science' question and solved a fundamental question in biochemistry: How does the cell generate energy? Although there is no way that industry would have funded this, there was also no way that government would have funded it either. He won a Nobel Prize for his work. Do not make the mistake of conflating 'private' with 'for-profit'. This is a false dichotomy that overlooks important social efforts, such as the Polio Vaccines.