Comment Really? (was: Huh) (Score 1) 175
First, I'd like to argue with a few of the points in that last post:
Typically public research efforts are underfunded, liable to have their funding cut as a political decision, and staffed by second-rate staff (most of the top-class ones will work in the private sector, where they will be paid more).
That's contingent on the flawed argument that the only reason anyone would research for this or that employer is the money, and that the best researchers are only interested in the almighty dollar. Never mind the increased prestige, academic freedom, etc. that come with government research.
The private sector OTOH, although it will certainly charge for its discoveries, which will cost us money, the overall benefit will be better:
1. they are certain to exploit and develop their intellectual property for all it's worth - something we are not assured of from the government - which means that the advances to medical science will be greater - and this is surely the overriding reason why this is better.
So, again, there is the argument that desire for money will drive commerce to develop discoveries better than government, money apparently being the only thing that drives humans to action. This is nice-and-consistent with the image of the lazy salaried government scientist who need not work. This neglects the general, if not universal, point that the ones who accept less money to work for the government tend to be the do-gooder types, motivated to exploit discoveries for--gasp-- non-monetary reasons.
Yes, they will charge for their discoveries, and not necessarily for the better. You lauded the profit motive that will (supposedly) drive the private sector to exploit discoveries for all they're worth. What about that same proofit motive that will allow some company or other to monopolize some hypothetical discovery that may lead to improved treatment of some genetic disorder? Suddenly this company has a strangle hold on a particular field of medicine, bringing me to:
2. we can afford the cost of private ownership. Affluence is at an all time high.
Who's "we"? You? The upper middle class? Surely you can't mean all of those poor people? The point is that the people who may wind up needing some gene research-derived technology won't be able to afford it. The reports of pharmeceuticals compaines fanning the flames of the AIDS epidemic in Africa (granted, the government has not exactly been saintly in this matter) due to the incredible prices for treatments are all the evidence I need to see how much these companies are working for the greatest overall benefit
Aside from money, we can never, ever, afford the concentration of potentially useful technology in the hands of those who are interested first in its profitability, then in its benefits to society and so on. Entrusting something so potentially important, that can have such widespread a impact on our society, to such an organization, or even a collection of them (with the biggest inevitably swallowing up the small-timers), is morally indefensible
Typically public research efforts are underfunded, liable to have their funding cut as a political decision, and staffed by second-rate staff (most of the top-class ones will work in the private sector, where they will be paid more).
That's contingent on the flawed argument that the only reason anyone would research for this or that employer is the money, and that the best researchers are only interested in the almighty dollar. Never mind the increased prestige, academic freedom, etc. that come with government research.
The private sector OTOH, although it will certainly charge for its discoveries, which will cost us money, the overall benefit will be better:
1. they are certain to exploit and develop their intellectual property for all it's worth - something we are not assured of from the government - which means that the advances to medical science will be greater - and this is surely the overriding reason why this is better.
So, again, there is the argument that desire for money will drive commerce to develop discoveries better than government, money apparently being the only thing that drives humans to action. This is nice-and-consistent with the image of the lazy salaried government scientist who need not work. This neglects the general, if not universal, point that the ones who accept less money to work for the government tend to be the do-gooder types, motivated to exploit discoveries for--gasp-- non-monetary reasons.
Yes, they will charge for their discoveries, and not necessarily for the better. You lauded the profit motive that will (supposedly) drive the private sector to exploit discoveries for all they're worth. What about that same proofit motive that will allow some company or other to monopolize some hypothetical discovery that may lead to improved treatment of some genetic disorder? Suddenly this company has a strangle hold on a particular field of medicine, bringing me to:
2. we can afford the cost of private ownership. Affluence is at an all time high.
Who's "we"? You? The upper middle class? Surely you can't mean all of those poor people? The point is that the people who may wind up needing some gene research-derived technology won't be able to afford it. The reports of pharmeceuticals compaines fanning the flames of the AIDS epidemic in Africa (granted, the government has not exactly been saintly in this matter) due to the incredible prices for treatments are all the evidence I need to see how much these companies are working for the greatest overall benefit
Aside from money, we can never, ever, afford the concentration of potentially useful technology in the hands of those who are interested first in its profitability, then in its benefits to society and so on. Entrusting something so potentially important, that can have such widespread a impact on our society, to such an organization, or even a collection of them (with the biggest inevitably swallowing up the small-timers), is morally indefensible
