Printable View
Yes, because companies driven by quarterly profit results absolutely love basic research. Which is what stem cell research at the moment basically amounts to. And I'm not sure I want private companies involved there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
After all, we're talking about companies which try to patent genes. Or companies which sue farmers for patent infringement.
IBM spends billions of dollars every year on basic research, so yeah, companies can invest money into areas they think will profitable in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Hell, there are several private college's and other research institutions that can foot the bill if they really wanted to be on the cutting edge. Many of them have endowments that could easily afford it.
Yes. That's one company. Now, pray tell me, what ever happened to the Bell Labs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I'm not convinced you really think this.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
What happened to big pharma, which spends billions in R&D?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I have no idea how it works today, but in the past individual business tycoons and other rich people have contributed to scientific funding with much success, whereas basic research done by actual corporations has had results that much depended on the field of inquiry. And even with private individuals donating their funds, one is left with the possibility that the rich person in question is insane, and wishes to fund research into homeopathy, orgone boxes or the face on Mars. The obvious counter-example is Lysenkoism, so damned if you do, damned if you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Well, they make money off of pain and suffering, but so does Blackwater --- Xe, so what the hey. And of course, science exists above ethics and morality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think I already addressed that one. Now, do they spend billions in basic research or do they spend billions in quickly marketable products?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's why Enoch's argument about IBM is actually invalid - yes, IBM spends billions. But only 5% of their R&D goes into basic research. I dare say that the ratio will be similar in pharma...
And, as I said, with their Patent-on-Genes-Antics I'm not entirely sure I want those guys to lead the research in microbiology. I mean, some idiot let's them patent the genes for brown eyes and suddenly I have to pay them royalties...
... and don't try to tell me they won't try that. And that some idiot won't grant them the patent (I mean, if you can actually get a patent on The Wheel, then you can patent anything.)
How's that relevant to the point being made? When there's massive money to be made, even over the long term, there are groups willing to invest the necessary resources to obtain those gains.
But if we follow this chain of logic, you wouldn't want to be researching cures, just treatments... But I don't have any tin foil at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Last I heard, big pharma's billions in R&D was largely spent on making minor and relatively useless changes to existing substances in order to be able to milk patents a little longer (enabled through aggressive marketing of these substances to suckers, which soaks up many more billions than R&D). A great deal of the really good stuff started off as govt-funded projects I thought Tear said
Both, but presumably more on the latter, as that's where the money's at. You're making an implicit assumption that the government is any good at choosing the right areas to invest in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
You're assuming a global conspiracy again. Let's say there are 3 companies and 2 are selling treatments. Why would the third company not undercut both of them by developing a vaccine? A vaccine would give them much higher short-term profit (which you accept is what companies strive for) and screw their competitors. With your logic, we really shouldn't have any cures for anything (at least since the rise of big pharma), and that's clearly not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Hence the tin foil comment. But it is also not true that the best medical science results from the patient POV provide the highest profits, see Minx's post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'd like to see the distribution of the R&D spending.
High sensitivity and low specificity, but right for what? Saving Africa?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Honestly though, the govt would probably do well to not fund so much bad research.
Did you ignore the 5% with IBM? Why on earth should it be different at big pharma?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Oh, wait. http://www.slate.com/id/2287227/
Quote:
The first research phase involved in developing a new drug is basic (as opposed to applied) research. Very little of this type of research is funded by drug companies; 84 percent is funded by the government, and private universities provide additional, unspecified funding. The Tufts Center group assumed that drug companies spent, on average, $121 million on basic research to create a new drug, but Light and Warburton find that hard to square with their estimate that industry devotes only 1.2 percent of sales to all their basic research. Add in a few additional considerations and Big Pharma would have us believe basic research costs end up constituting more than one-third of the Tufts Center's $802 million estimate. That's way too much, Light and Warburton say.
[...]So the drug companies' $1.32 billion estimate was off, according to Light and Warburton, by only $1.265 billion.* Let's call it a rounding error
http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kru...03/17/le02.gif
So how is Africa doing with modern medicine, Minx?
Why do it when you can get it for free from the government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Switching targets again, are we? Your new argument does not play very well with your old one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
So, which is it: A government which is incapable of choosing the proper areas to research? Or a government so efficient that companies don't need to do their research?Quote:
Both, but presumably more on the latter, as that's where the money's at. You're making an implicit assumption that the government is any good at choosing the right areas to invest in.
Can't choose both ;)
Besides, didn't you just try to tell us that big pharma sprends big moneis on basic R&D?
To be fair, this only works for huge corporations and multi-billionaires who effectively don't pay taxes. But yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm not sure what you're asking. What in that graph would you directly attribute exclusively to big pharma's research in the recent past? Way to isolate variables mate :P
hehehe poor africa... http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec..._and_the_.html
Nevertheless there's apparently very few to no labs in the US that can do this research with the funding ban in place because the government's funding, if not its hand, is so involved with more or less all of this cutting edge research. Funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
When did I say there's a huge profit potential? I believe there may be a huge potential for curing all manner of illnesses, for replacing organs, for extending human life spans. I suppose there's money to be made, but that's not why I would like to see a halt to future funding bans. And maybe it could be privately funded, but the basic research model we've seen in the US for this sort of thing has mainly been at least partially funding in one way or another via the government. Sadly, that's how we've managed to become the technological powerhouse we are - seed money from the government - sad at least from the perspective that so many ding-dongs these days think that model should be torn down...Quote:
Would federal funding make it easier? Absolutely, but if the potential for profit/development is as great as you think then there's no reason why it couldn't be privately funded.
On a serious note, this question warrants some serious thought and introspection. What is the truth of our existance? Who would turn down a hundred million dollars to do with as they see fit? Who would give it all away to help their fellow human and return to whatever borderline poverty they came from? Perhaps you would do it in Finland knowing you would still have health care, a home, food, employment etc. But here in the US? Not so sure. Poverty here is often regarded as a character flaw of the poor, so there is very often a callous regard for those in need. That's why we have such a piss poor safety net. Whatever. All I know is my whole entire life revolves around acquiring and managing money, using it to meet all my needs and many of my wants, and making sure I have enough saved for reasonably expected life turns and outcomes. And my nation's education system and much of my own priority with my children is teaching them literacy, mathmatics, problem solving, critical thinking and a strong work ethic so they'll spend their lives revolving around acquiring money too. Its literally negligent parenting not to prepare the little ones to take good care of themselves - and here, the foundation of that is having enough money. Really, what else is there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Sustainability? :)
"All I know is my whole entire life revolves around acquiring and managing money, using it to meet all my needs and many of my wants, and making sure I have enough saved for reasonably expected life turns and outcomes."
Wow, that sounds a bit extreme. No wonder you're asking about the truth of our existence.
I guess it's official, no one reads my rants except Wraithy :(Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Extreme? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I read many, if not most, of your rants. I can't say ALL and be honest and I do value honesty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
The simple truth is that today Western capitalism is in the final stages of infiltrating, and for lack of a better word mutating, the rest of the world's cultures into some version of what the US has become. Everyone will live this way to some extent in the years to come, even you socialists in Europe - that's the necessary outcome of Globalization. Look at what's happening now with all the debt crises in Southern Europe; that's the beginning of the End for all that humanism. Money already is, and will be to a greater and greater extent over time for everyone everywhere, the fundamental organizing concept, factor, element, reality around which human life choices are made and time is spent. One way, or ther other.....
The way you wrote it sounds extreme. Your whole entire life revolving around money. Raising your children to have their lives revolve around money. We all need to have and use money to a certain degree because that's life. But you make it sound like money is the primary goal in life, rather than the result of applying knowledge, education, work ethics and financial literacy to life. :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Whatever goal you identify for yourself in life, assuming its not an absurdity like suicide or homelessness, you can't achieve it without building your life meticulously around acquiring and managing money. Want to raise a family? You need money. Want to be a great painter? You need money. Want to be a scientist, an athlete, a movie star, an astronaut, a doctor, a lawyer, a garbage collector, a politician, a priest, you name it? You need money. Nobody can be safe, secure and healthy without money.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT