5 ms·

Being a little more general, what model would you propose for funding research? With exceptions (e.g. the Gates foundation) the vast majority of research fundi

by bbgm 17y ago

Being a little more general, what model would you propose for funding research? With exceptions (e.g. the Gates foundation) the vast majority of research funding is taxpayer funded, and replacing that source is pretty much impossible. Now how that funding system works is another story.

steveklabnik 17y ago
It's not so much the public funding of the research that's the problem, it's that we pay for the reasearch, and then pay for the results.
hnhg 17y ago
Perhaps the university could receive an endowment and then leave the public sector. I know that taxpayers fund R&D too in the private sector with tax rebates and the like so the situation isn't clear cut between the public and private sector. I'm actually advocating that universities should release their IP into the public domain rather than profit from it. Would this preclude another Google from happening? I don't know. I guess there will be strong arguments against this and I'm happy to hear them in case I've not thought this out all too well :D
- bbgm 17y ago
  That I don't disagree with per se. The tech transfer process is something that definitely needs to be modified. ibridge networks has a model that I find quite interesting and is along the lines of making pools of technology available that might be commercialized (not all university research, in fact only a small percentage can be commercialized). http://www.ibridgenetwork.org/ http://www.ibridgenetwork.org/
pmichaud 17y ago
The logical thing to do is set up a system in which the government invests in projects, and gets some kind of stake similar to equity so it can recoup some of that tax money for reinvestment (or whatever purpose).
- vilya 17y ago
  If research is successfully commercialised, then the government is already getting money back through taxes on the company.
  - furyg3 17y ago
    What about research that isn't successfully commercialized? It just sits there until the patent expires... If someone gives you money to conduct research or develop a product, it's completely reasonable to expect that they will want to profit directly (not indirectly) when you succeed. In this case, the "someone" is everyone. If a university or researcher doesn't like those terms, that's ok. Just ask someone else.
    - nagrom 17y ago
      Unfortunately in a lot of cases, someone else cannot do the job. And certainly not for the money that is offered by most universities. Go ahead and find me someone who can write C and C++ and Python and Java well, do complicated mathematics, understand quantum field theory/genetics/taxonomy/quantum optics/nuclear engineering/etc., manage large research projects, teach classes of 50-100 students a few times a week (having prepared all the material!) and is willing to do all this 60-70 hours a week every year of their career for $80k-$100k/year, after investing 10+ years of the adulthood in an expensive education. Plus, until you ahve tenure, you can never be certain of a job for more than a year or two, and will need to travel regularly both in the job, and just to find work. Financial firms and large corps. are sucking good researchers out of the university system. For those that are motivated by the material gain available in those organisations, allowing them to exploit a tiny fraction of their work keeps them producing the rest of their work for everyone else. There was a great quote on here a few weeks agoa long the lines of 'There are plenty of scientists, the government just isn't willing to pay market rate.' Allowing spin-off companies and the exploitation of some research is one way that the universities can keep those scientists within the system.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    They get that on a successful product anyway regardless of whether they funded the research (the idea of commercial taxes being that they pay for industrial and fiscal infrastructure including IP enforcement). In other words there's no incentive for the taxpayer to subsidize research on that basis, whereas shorter patent terms or something would bring benefits back to the public sooner than otherwise.
barrkel 17y ago
There's a survey of different approaches here: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/financing-drug-research-what-are-the-issues/ http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/financing...
furyg3 17y ago
Research should that's publicly funded should be given back to the public. To put it another way, the public should, as a condition of giving out money to researchers, require that the results of that research belong to the public. If the public gives you an NSF grant then your papers/articles should be released via a Creative Commons license (or similar) in addition to being published in a journal. Your data should be immediately available to other universities and researchers. Any products you engineer should be in the public domain.
- netcan 17y ago
  Are there any examples of such requirements in the real world.
  - lliiffee 17y ago
    Yes. For example, the NIH requires research to be published in open-access journals, many of which also now require data to be made public. These requirements look like they will be everywhere sooner or later. (Don't know of any restrictions about commercializing results, though.)
    - netcan 17y ago
      Publishing requirement is a bit softer then what I meant. I was talking about a copyright or licensing requirements.
- nzmsv 17y ago
  There's a lot more to building a university spin-off company and a successful product than just completing the original research. The research grant is like seed funding in this case. The university benefits from its involvement, which means its students benefit. Not to mention that the possibility of starting a spin-off company is a motivator to do great research. Do you really want to take all this away? Sure, a lot of research ends up just sitting there, unused. Some of this is because of licensing, but not always. Most research results are quite experimental, and just can't be used in their raw form to make a product. They are useful for further research though. And no one is disallowing researchers to study and cite previous work. I'm not saying the system is perfect. But it might be better to proceed with small changes, rather than trying to revolutionize research overnight.

by bbgm 17y ago

steveklabnik 17y ago

It's not so much the public funding of the research that's the problem, it's that we pay for the reasearch, and then pay for the results.

hnhg 17y ago

Perhaps the university could receive an endowment and then leave the public sector. I know that taxpayers fund R&D too in the private sector with tax rebates and the like so the situation isn't clear cut between the public and private sector. I'm actually advocating that universities should release their IP into the public domain rather than profit from it. Would this preclude another Google from happening? I don't know. I guess there will be strong arguments against this and I'm happy to hear them in case I've not thought this out all too well :D

bbgm 17y ago
That I don't disagree with per se. The tech transfer process is something that definitely needs to be modified. ibridge networks has a model that I find quite interesting and is along the lines of making pools of technology available that might be commercialized (not all university research, in fact only a small percentage can be commercialized). http://www.ibridgenetwork.org/ http://www.ibridgenetwork.org/

pmichaud 17y ago

The logical thing to do is set up a system in which the government invests in projects, and gets some kind of stake similar to equity so it can recoup some of that tax money for reinvestment (or whatever purpose).

vilya 17y ago
If research is successfully commercialised, then the government is already getting money back through taxes on the company.
- furyg3 17y ago
  What about research that isn't successfully commercialized? It just sits there until the patent expires... If someone gives you money to conduct research or develop a product, it's completely reasonable to expect that they will want to profit directly (not indirectly) when you succeed. In this case, the "someone" is everyone. If a university or researcher doesn't like those terms, that's ok. Just ask someone else.
  - nagrom 17y ago
    Unfortunately in a lot of cases, someone else cannot do the job. And certainly not for the money that is offered by most universities. Go ahead and find me someone who can write C and C++ and Python and Java well, do complicated mathematics, understand quantum field theory/genetics/taxonomy/quantum optics/nuclear engineering/etc., manage large research projects, teach classes of 50-100 students a few times a week (having prepared all the material!) and is willing to do all this 60-70 hours a week every year of their career for $80k-$100k/year, after investing 10+ years of the adulthood in an expensive education. Plus, until you ahve tenure, you can never be certain of a job for more than a year or two, and will need to travel regularly both in the job, and just to find work. Financial firms and large corps. are sucking good researchers out of the university system. For those that are motivated by the material gain available in those organisations, allowing them to exploit a tiny fraction of their work keeps them producing the rest of their work for everyone else. There was a great quote on here a few weeks agoa long the lines of 'There are plenty of scientists, the government just isn't willing to pay market rate.' Allowing spin-off companies and the exploitation of some research is one way that the universities can keep those scientists within the system.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  They get that on a successful product anyway regardless of whether they funded the research (the idea of commercial taxes being that they pay for industrial and fiscal infrastructure including IP enforcement). In other words there's no incentive for the taxpayer to subsidize research on that basis, whereas shorter patent terms or something would bring benefits back to the public sooner than otherwise.

barrkel 17y ago

There's a survey of different approaches here: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/financing-drug-research-what-are-the-issues/ http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/financing...

furyg3 17y ago

Research should that's publicly funded should be given back to the public. To put it another way, the public should, as a condition of giving out money to researchers, require that the results of that research belong to the public. If the public gives you an NSF grant then your papers/articles should be released via a Creative Commons license (or similar) in addition to being published in a journal. Your data should be immediately available to other universities and researchers. Any products you engineer should be in the public domain.

netcan 17y ago
Are there any examples of such requirements in the real world.
- lliiffee 17y ago
  Yes. For example, the NIH requires research to be published in open-access journals, many of which also now require data to be made public. These requirements look like they will be everywhere sooner or later. (Don't know of any restrictions about commercializing results, though.)
  - netcan 17y ago
    Publishing requirement is a bit softer then what I meant. I was talking about a copyright or licensing requirements.
nzmsv 17y ago
There's a lot more to building a university spin-off company and a successful product than just completing the original research. The research grant is like seed funding in this case. The university benefits from its involvement, which means its students benefit. Not to mention that the possibility of starting a spin-off company is a motivator to do great research. Do you really want to take all this away? Sure, a lot of research ends up just sitting there, unused. Some of this is because of licensing, but not always. Most research results are quite experimental, and just can't be used in their raw form to make a product. They are useful for further research though. And no one is disallowing researchers to study and cite previous work. I'm not saying the system is perfect. But it might be better to proceed with small changes, rather than trying to revolutionize research overnight.