I hope the trend swings back towards basic science research in the coming years. I recognize the usefulness of applied research, especially in the medical field. However, I feel that basic research can have truly untold benefits years or decades down the line.
A book that deals with this that I've had on my to-read list for quite a while is The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation by Jon Gertner. Looks like it ought to be a good read.
- In Cambridge, Mass. — home to M.I.T. and Harvard — they include the $100 million Ragon Institute for immunology research, the $150 million Koch Institute for cancer studies, the $165 million Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research, the $250 million Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, the $350 million McGovern Institute for brain research, the $450 million Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and the $700 million Broad Institute for genome research.
This to me is really the core problem with this arrangement. By empowering the wealthy to drive science, we risk consolidating power in a space that benefits tremendously from diversity and openness. Can these be supported even if science funding is progressively privatized and centralized? It might be hard. I say this from my own experiences and interactions with the Broad in particular, which frankly is doing a tremendous amount of damage to science through its heavy-handed pursuit of a truth its founders have believed for decades. What we need in science is not pursuit of glory, although it helps. We need some real openness, and this is supported as much by the mess of public funding as anything.
OP: I think a response to your comment, really depends on how you define "basic research".
Plenty of companies are still willing to invest in research that is more than one degree away from a new drug / plant strain / medical device / manufacturing process. The lab I work in has multiple scientists funded by a commercial license to a software package we develop and their work has ranged down to "new methods of parameter optimization."
Now, are you defining it as restricted to "the structural mechanism by with pathway X is actuated in B. subtilis", "new proofs within string theory", or "investigations into the consistency of our fundamental logic systems"? In that case, the number of interested funders is definitely smaller, but these problems are still almost always linked at most a few more degrees away from tangible problems.
Is this really new news? I mean, biotech? agribusiness? pharmaceutical industry?
I know I should read the article, so I'll save the post and read it later - but I'm already really wondering . . . corporate welfare . . . is anyone really suggesting these billionaires are ready to dispense with their entitlement programs
Er, I really think you should read the article. It deals mainly with American Philanthropy and how, in coming years, it may take the place of government funded basic science. Not quite sure what you are getting at with this comment.
Lets see . . .
Bill Gates [mentioned in the article] and Paul Allen - both of Microsoft, a company known for violations of anti-trust laws . . .
Perelman, Black, Milken - a FELON, and Steyer all Wall Street players . . . is the lack of tax on Wall Street trading not a form of corporate welfare?
Harold Hamm and David Koch both have their hands in oil, and indeed, the oil industry is famous for it's corporate welfare and I would suggest, rightly or otherwise that the Koch Machine depends on it
In this age of Global Warming does it really make any sense at all that we will allow a small handful of billionaires to set science priorities for the entire United States?
Because honestly, I don't think that it does . . .
Obviously you're not wrong when it comes to any of them, but
- In this age of Global Warming does it really make any sense at all that we will allow a small handful of billionaires to set science priorities for the entire United States?
Depends what you mean by 'sense'. The priorities come from the money, period. And I'd rather they be spending money on something science-related than just about anything else. I'll deal with conflict of interest and an utter moral void later.
- The priorities come from the money, period.
but the money is controlled by this select group of individuals - some of whom as has been noted are felons . . . Since they control the money, the way they choose to allocate it helps shape priorities . . .
- And I'd rather they be spending money on something science-related than just about anything else.
well, since you put it that way . . .