A naive question: So much “tax payer” money is going towards research funding. But it looks like private companies are reaping rewards, mostly as a new drug. Why is this research not (mainly) privately funded?
It's impossible to discover a basic fact, such as "the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell," and monetize it fully within the same organization. A million scientists can take a look at that basic fact and involve it in their own research in ten million ways.
It's also not practical to keep those facts as trade secrets over the several decades over which their applications need to develop. Even if an industry consortium was willing to discover that clouds are made of water droplets, it would certainly leak before the science of meteorology had progressed far enough for that consortium to offer saleable rain forecasts.
Finally, companies are unwilling to train people about basic facts. Academia is the only system where "and then you tell everybody" is a part of the incentive structure. Privately, you have a strong incentive to reveal nothing and punish leakers.
that's a pretty funny example you gave, because the discovery of the chemiosmotic effect was not funded by the government, it was privately funded by a guy who raised money and holed himself up in a regency estate with an assistant for a few years to prove it.
Basic research creates foundation knowledge that can drive medical innovation, but rarely does academic research create final composition of matter. Private funded work is all the non-research components of drug discovery - optimization of molecules, regulatory work, commercialization, etc...
To imply that private companies reap the rewards of basic research without contribute much is ignoring the many other components of translational work.
To give a more financial answer, it’s because pharma products have a low probability of success and have long lag times. That means a high cost of capital: lenders and investors are going to expect good returns to make up for the risk.
Second, biotech/pharma actually already do invest quite a lot in R&D. But they tend to focus on translational work rather than speculative exploration, because it is less risky.
a lot of basic research is very risky and most of the time it’s not stuff that leads to immediate development of a new drug. it’s basically acquiring knowledge with the hope that some of it might turn out to be practically useful in the future, but in the short term, it just allows us to understand stuff. but it’s not directly profitable, so private companies aren’t motivated to invest so much money in that
this sounds like it's a really bad idea for the government to fund. What's to stop someone who happens to have made it in the ivory tower go crazy, spin up some kooky ideas that are highly risky and just blow taxpayer money on something not really accountable?
In part because the expiry of patents puts a cap on the return on investment private research can get you.
Patents last for about 25 years, but important innovations have returns far into the future, hundreds of years. At that rate, you would very often be better off accumulating interest on capital anyways.
Notwithstanding the nature of scientific progress as an accumulation of smaller experiences (each individually harder to justify with a profit motive).
Indeed, even privately funded research is often openly published, such as the now-famous paper "attention is all you need". There's just not that much to gain from keeping every single thing under wraps. More to gain with openness.
Even ignoring the limits of patents, how much of this research "pays off"? Do 1% of research grants go towards something tangibly useful, or is it closer to 0.1%?
A growing suspicion of mine is that maybe the govt is just more efficient at some things, like funding speculative research, which is part of the industrial policy of every prosperous nation.
While there is value from having the drug becoming available on the market, you would think there would need to be some form price controls in exchange for private production.
whatshisface|9 months ago
It's also not practical to keep those facts as trade secrets over the several decades over which their applications need to develop. Even if an industry consortium was willing to discover that clouds are made of water droplets, it would certainly leak before the science of meteorology had progressed far enough for that consortium to offer saleable rain forecasts.
Finally, companies are unwilling to train people about basic facts. Academia is the only system where "and then you tell everybody" is a part of the incentive structure. Privately, you have a strong incentive to reveal nothing and punish leakers.
throwawaymaths|9 months ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell
fgimenez|9 months ago
To imply that private companies reap the rewards of basic research without contribute much is ignoring the many other components of translational work.
biophysboy|9 months ago
Second, biotech/pharma actually already do invest quite a lot in R&D. But they tend to focus on translational work rather than speculative exploration, because it is less risky.
lentoutcry|9 months ago
caycep|9 months ago
lakhim|9 months ago
throwawaymaths|9 months ago
aeblyve|9 months ago
Patents last for about 25 years, but important innovations have returns far into the future, hundreds of years. At that rate, you would very often be better off accumulating interest on capital anyways.
Notwithstanding the nature of scientific progress as an accumulation of smaller experiences (each individually harder to justify with a profit motive).
Indeed, even privately funded research is often openly published, such as the now-famous paper "attention is all you need". There's just not that much to gain from keeping every single thing under wraps. More to gain with openness.
NoMoreNicksLeft|9 months ago
analog31|9 months ago
wnc3141|9 months ago