The problem with private universities like Harvard is that they get funding from the government in the first place. No one votes for private businesses like General Electric either.
Much of the cuts to Federal funding have been to research dollars, which historically drive innovation, and lead to marketed products that drive future economies. Penny wise now is pound foolish for the future. Many studies have shown a positive return on research investment for NIH & NSF dollars. Maybe less for "softer" research.
But for biomedical sciences, take the human genome project. Paved the way for scores of new drugs that in one generation doubled life expectancy for many cancers and helped drive development of drugs for many other diseases as well. Take monoclonal antibody technology. Purely an academic pursuit 20 years ago, now becoming standards of care. Cancer immunotherapy. Antibody-drug conjugates. Targeted protein degradation (a coming wave). We got a cure for hepatitis C in the last few years, modern direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications with a 95% cure rate after taking pills for 2 months. Prior to that, in vitro fertilization tech. mRNA. Oh wait, skip that, and ignore the cancer vaccines in development, showing promise, but unfunded in the USA
Many of the big ideas are too risky at first for private businesses to explore. Academia de-risks them. Some ideas do fail, while some succeed wildly.
There's a different argument I guess for less obviously translational science. If tight economies, maybe you don't need to study the mating habits of roundworms. But by all means keep looking for cures for ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, brain tumors, etc.
https://twitter.com/PolitiBunny/status/2034590046704042433
I think each of these views has some validity. We could easily be doing more to help our fellow people, including reducing things like childcare costs.
on the flip side, free college is stupid and more importantly, several of these aren’t really the role (or shouldn’t be) of the federal government.
I'm also getting sick of the war which has no strategy, and is in a purgatory type setting, and I’m a bigger Israel supporter than anyone here.
That being said, I was adamant about the stupid of Obama’s foreign policy which enabled the Iranian expanded sphere of influence and cause much of the shit storm over the past few years.
Many of the big ideas are too risky at first for private businesses to explore. Academia de-risks them. Some ideas do fail, while some succeed wildly.
Shooter has a point here. There are inherent benefits to the research and development done at universities that the private sector can’t or won’t invest behind.
plenty of profs develop new technologies on the side and then license them to smart business to commercialize and scale.
that being said, too many universities get funding for things that don’t help humanity. That should be the primary goal. Obsessing over the past and trying to promote radical ideas is not the same as empowering innovation.
Many of the big ideas are too risky at first for private businesses to explore. Academia de-risks them. Some ideas do fail, while some succeed wildly.
Shooter has a point here. There are inherent benefits to the research and development done at universities that the private sector can’t or won’t invest behind.
plenty of profs develop new technologies on the side and then license them to smart business to commercialize and scale.
that being said, too many universities get funding for things that don’t help humanity. That should be the primary goal. Obsessing over the past and trying to promote radical ideas is not the same as empowering innovation.
Of course there is going to be some innovation. If you go around throwing capital at people at some point innovation will happen. The problem is it's extremely inefficient and slows down innovation overall because you waste more capital when you have centralized entities with endless money making the decisions, rather than markets.
Derisking an idea is the first step. If there is some evidence that, as an example, brain cancer patients all have a gentic mutation that makes too much of a certain enzyme, a good idea MIGHT BE to block the function of that overabundant enzyme.
But that is risky, since is the overproduction of that enzyme CAUSING tumor growth, or just a byproduct? Is the idea nuts? What else doess the enzyme do,?
So an academic scientist develops a mouse model and genetically knocks out that enzyme, and looks to see what happens to tumor growth. Hey, it works, tumor growth is halted! Then chemists make a test drug to block the enzyme, and make it get to the brain. That works! Now it's derisked. Let's patent the drug, start a biotechnology company, show it works not just in mice, and a pharma partner may license it, convinced by that data that it isn't so risky that the whole idea is nuts.
That's a whole lot of puffery that doesn't address my point that the risk is still there, it's just been socialized so no single person or institution takes on the risk, but rather the taxpayer.
Then you go on to prove my other point, that after the taxpayer has shielded the researcher from the risk, the individuals and institution involved derive all the monetary benefit after having no risk.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
https://twitter.com/MichaelARothman/status/2034438913000165590
That's not a counterrevolution. It's just a revolution.
Are we not men?https://twitter.com/MichaelARothman/status/2034438913000165590
That's not a counterrevolution. It's just a revolution.
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
That's a whole lot of puffery that doesn't address my point that the risk is still there, it's just been socialized so no single person or institution takes on the risk, but rather the taxpayer.
Then you go on to prove my other point, that after the taxpayer has shielded the researcher from the risk, the individuals and institution involved derive all the monetary benefit after having no risk.
It isn't pufferey, though. There is an entire field of research called "target validation". It boils down to determining whether a biological target is truly involved in disease progression or not, and whether modulating that target is a valid disease modifying strategy or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes not.
Years ago I worked on drugs to lower blood pressure. It made perfect sense, we would be knocking down an enzyme that causes vasodilation. But.. when it we got the compounds into animal studies we found out that it only worked for a short time. Blood pressure decreased a lot, then a little, then not at all, then when you took the animals off the drug, their BP shot up! Another enzyme was being produced to compensate. Bad news. An invalid target. Shut that research down!
Target validation does not avert all risk, as things that "work" (are efficacious) can fail in clinical trials, such as for reasons of causing undesirable side effects. But it establishes that the entire idea is worth exploring, and for-profit institutions are loath to jump into the game until that has been proven by non-profits, typically university research.
Yes, taxpayers foot the bill for biomedical research, and the economic impact over the long run is enormously favorable, with (depending on the study) between a 2.5/1 and 5/1 return on investment. Earlier I mentioned several entire classes of drugs that were pioneered through the basic research done in academia.
Yes, we can monetarily benefit once we discover a drug, based on patent law and the Bayh-Dole act. It is a driver of innovation. That also doesn't happen in industry, where you sign over patent rights to the parent company and don't ever get a dime.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Just stop bloviating already. The risk is socialized and the researcher and/or institution is shielded from it. No matter how much of the process you regurgitate to sound important and bright, you can't refute the point I'm making, so just stop digging already.
Yes, we can monetarily benefit once we discover a drug, based on patent law and the Bayh-Dole act. It is a driver of innovation. That also doesn't happen in industry, where you sign over patent rights to the parent company and don't ever get a dime.
And again, you prove my other point.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Maybe never any financial return, although I bet there is. It is a quality of life return, though, for many.Many of the big ideas are too risky at first for private businesses to explore. Academia de-risks them. Some ideas do fail, while some succeed wildly.
What do you mean they are being "de-risked"? The risks are still there; they're just being socialized.
And end up costing more money and creating more waste.
While the taxpayer who backstopped the risk never sees any financial return. That goes to the individual and institution, while taxpayers pay through the nose to take advantage of the medical research they paid for once already.
So I agree with your note about socializing the risk of basic research, I think it's worth it. I think the more pressing issue is how to prevent freeriding from other nations on our investments that lead to products that benefit the world.
So I agree with your note about socializing the risk of basic research, I think it's worth it.
People have jumped on Shooter for his use of the term "de-risk." Of course that risk isn't eliminated; yes, it is "socialized." It's not a unique concept. It's the basis of insurance. All that said, what is the alternative? Get the government out of the research business? That's a stupid idea, no matter how much one may dislike Shooter. Basic research allows for the initial testing of what may or may not be a breakthrough concept or a totally failed hypothesis. And yes, Shooter and his ilk get paid whatever the outcome might be.
Maybe never any financial return, although I bet there is. It is a quality of life return, though, for many.
So I agree with your note about socializing the risk of basic research, I think it's worth it. I think the more pressing issue is how to prevent freeriding from other nations on our investments that lead to products that benefit the world.
Of course we get the benefit of the research that pans out, but we pay through the nose for that benefit on each end of it.
A broken clock is right twice a day. I actually liked Trump saying that the subsidization of other countries on the backs of patients in the US has to stop.
Unfortunately, that happens in other industries too. Modern agriculture companies are infamous for that.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Shorter @unclemark: Our society has lots of paid scientists.So I agree with your note about socializing the risk of basic research, I think it's worth it.
People have jumped on Shooter for his use of the term "de-risk." Of course that risk isn't eliminated; yes, it is "socialized." It's not a unique concept. It's the basis of insurance. All that said, what is the alternative? Get the government out of the research business? That's a stupid idea, no matter how much one may dislike Shooter. Basic research allows for the initial testing of what may or may not be a breakthrough concept or a totally failed hypothesis. And yes, Shooter and his ilk get paid whatever the outcome might be.
Bottom line, science is not a significant cause of our $40T debt but is the main reason the US is the greatest nation ever and most Americans have the best standard of living ever.Maybe never any financial return, although I bet there is. It is a quality of life return, though, for many.
So I agree with your note about socializing the risk of basic research, I think it's worth it. I think the more pressing issue is how to prevent freeriding from other nations on our investments that lead to products that benefit the world.
Of course we get the benefit of the research that pans out, but we pay through the nose for that benefit on each end of it.
A broken clock is right twice a day. I actually liked Trump saying that the subsidization of other countries on the backs of patients in the US has to stop.
Unfortunately, that happens in other industries too. Modern agriculture companies are infamous for that.
Also, there’s no realistic way to separate the relative scientific contributions of the public and private sectors because our knowledge base is a continual intertwined evolution.
Get the government out of the research business? That's a stupid idea, no matter how much one may dislike Shooter.
At no point have I even mentioned that. My beef is with the socialization of risk while privatizing the rewards.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB