Thanks for the story, I would enjoy hearing more like that. Perhaps I took your flippant line in OP too seriously, but that’s all you provided. I don’t see where you have disagreed with my argument at all. The waste idea was peripheral, and even then your disagreement is of the O, Veni variety.
Oh, that's because I went out on a wild tangent, though the core of the issue is that sharing resources isn't a purely material concern. If you want to look at that lab like it's a business that needs to grow, it's missing the point of what labs and researchers do. When demand is bigger than supply doesn't mean their only course is to open an LLC. If you want to tangent this discussion more, the real-world problem is that even if one of those trained undergrad folks opened their own startup to sell bespoke dyes and undercut Sigma or other supplier, they would almost certainly be bottlenecked and crushed by supplier monopolies. How about them potatos? EDIT: If you wanna go that route, let me just tell you you're yet to make an argument that doesn't boil down to "make profit = good."even then your disagreement is of the O, Veni variety.
I am a bit confused by this. "Sharing" can mean multiple people using the same resource, so I think "distributing" might be a better term. There is a lot of fluorescent dye at the Janelia Research Campus, because they make the stuff. There are laboratories scattered around the world that can use dye to perform research. Moving dye from Janelia to the laboratories is useful because it enables the research to continue. I compare two methods of distribution: selling dye and giving it away. Labs and researchers are the consumers. Dye distribution is not their concern, they are focused on doing science, not business. Janelia is not doing scientific research when they set up an e-commerce website for dyes and set all the prices to zero plus shipping. The dyes already exist and are available for sale elsewhere; this program is a kind of economic or social experiment to see what happens "if we just give everything away." They don't "need to grow" but if they don't grow one consequence is that the reach of the program will be limited. That's fine with me; the goal can be to "provide dye to some laboratories with limited budgets that can't afford expensive dyes" rather than "satisfy the entire world's demand for dye" or "maximize the quantity of dye shipped."the core of the issue is that sharing resources isn't a purely material concern
If you want to look at that lab like it's a business that needs to grow, it's missing the point of what labs and researchers do.
"that route" being the one where we characterize each others arguments, rather than engaging with them. I characterized your comment as being of that sort that expresses indignation at an argument but fails to say why it is wrong. "Dude, seriously?" is a good opening statement, but not an argument. You characterize my arguments as all boiling down to "make profit = good." Since my thesis is that the profit motive provides better outcomes than alternatives, I am pleased to see you note that my arguments support my thesis. I am interested in learning why you do not find them persuasive.
And you're blatantly avoiding my followup. Are you indignant, or have I made the trap too obvious? But let's have it your way, and let's work through your argument. You introduce two clauses in a sentence that's an appeal to Ethos: "I support the Good Intentions Motive. I mentioned charity several times in an earlier conversation as a way to reduce the gaps left by the Profit Motive. The two motives can work together." Efficient, strong start. Ah, a classic. Because implication A=>B doesn't work only when Truth implies False, you may even pretend at grace by assuming B ("everyone can benefit") to be true! Unfortunately, you follow with sarcastic "I noticed the problem" by pointing to what's explicitly called a problem in the article. It's only true when 'problem' means "not everyone can benefit." This deal a blow to my strong thesis, but doesn't work for less restrictive qualifier. You can still benefit some, but you're silently equating those two positions as bad. I addressed it more than sufficiently, but let's state it explicitly: the material cost is negligible, and this becomes more true as you scale up production, but it's the know-how distribution that is the bottleneck. You claimed it doesn't invalidate your argument, which you apparently didn't think worthwhile to support. True only until the intersection of supply-demand curves, adjusted for expenses, under assumption you have no direct competition. Why? You might as well just say that this tiny lab HAS TO grow into the world-wide brand that produces so much dye it's rebranded as food additive just to offload the thing, but I suppose it'd be too on the nose. So if the goal has to be profit, it already doesn't need advertising, just URL redirect. Cool! That's pretty typical. Dealt with this one already. This I agree on, I'd even re-concede 'most/many' instead everyone, but your arrival at that conclusion is spotty and disputable. You skipped around values of A=>B, but didn't connect the thing. Also, you're treating research institutions like a business whereas it's not their role. I don't think you're obtuse, so explain to me why this substitution works without detriment to their purpose. His entire reasoning follows from the prefect knowledge of the system, rules, and its actors. Pretty par for the course in economics, which I for one have the sense to admit as not my forte, but I'll deal with his purply prose when I'm not busy.But if "the goal isn't profit" is it true that "everyone can benefit" under Good Intentions alone?
Under Good Intentions, success is a problem.
There are costs to make and distribute dyes, and increasing success means increasing costs, without any corresponding increase in the resources used to make and distribute dyes.
Under the Profit Motive, a firm will face growing pains as business scales up, but this is the most desirable sign of success. Every additional order brings revenue which supports satisfying more orders.
The goal of reaching every potential customer is so important that a promotion in which only 1% of the audience responds is worthwhile.
The goal of getting dyes to everyone who can use them is supported by spending money on advertising.
A simple search for "fluorescent dye" online produces a number of invitations to acquire dye via the Profit Motive, some from firms that have made great efforts to establish a reputation for reliability and convenience. I had 300 μg of PA Janelia Fluor® 549, SE in my shopping cart in minutes.
It's not easy to find the Good Intentions site. If you can find it, you have to register before you can request a product. After I registered, a senior scientist contacted me to ask if I am affiliated with an organization (information "important for us to meet our legal obligations"). I confessed I was just snooping around and didn't need any dye.
It's great that Janelia is performing this service to whatever extent their budget allows. Probably they enable some work to be done that would not have happened because of financial limitations. Probably there is also some waste when people use free Janelia dyes on projects that might not have seemed worthwhile at $138 per 300 μg.
I think the challenge is in scaling, so everyone can benefit.
The Use of Knowledge in Society explains how the price mechanism promotes coordination among different people without requiring planning or oversight.
Sorry, I'm slow. Okay, we agree that taking your words literally, that "everyone can benefit" is an exaggeration. Only some people can benefit. I have gone to some length to acknowledge the dye giveaway program provides benefit. I support the program! It doesn't have to solve every problem to be good. I remembered the article addressing the difference between costs to develop and costs to manufacture: "During my time in industry, I also learned that dyes are expensive to develop but often cheap to produce – leading to strikingly large profit margins, partly to recoup the research costs." Rereading the article, it's clear that the free dyes are the ones that have already completed the costly R&D process: "Because we had optimized the methods to synthetize the dyes, the price per aliquot was now down to mere pennies." So my concern that demand for free dye will be a financial burden on Janelia was misplaced. The material cost is negligible, but there are other costs: • If Janelia had sold or licensed the dyes which are now offered for free, that represents lost revenue. • There is an opportunity cost in running the giveaway program rather than doing other work. The author has a good attitude and doesn't complain: "We fielded more and more emails; Jon resynthesized material, prepared the aliquots, and I spent Sunday nights divvying them into little protective bags. In hindsight, we probably spent too long doing it this way, but I enjoyed directly interacting with all the scientists who put our tools to use." So I repeat my assessment that it is wonderful that these guys are making the world a better place by providing these dyes at no cost to researchers who might not have the budget to pay market rates. I was talking about firms operating under the profit motive. They do not make their services an "open secret," rather they publicize their offer as broadly as possible. If the researcher does not know the product is available, it cannot do them any good. So there's a natural incentive with the profit motive to make people aware of how the product can help them ... and this incentive is so strong the rest of us are annoyed by irrelevant ads. I didn't understand your response about "pre-emptive waste" in fusion research, which is completely different from the goal of distributing existing fluorescent dyes. We don't know if fusion will work out with any amount of research. If it never works out, we might conclude in hindsight that research was a waste of effort, but in advance we don't know so it might be worth taking a chance. If it does work out, the benefits could be so great that almost any amount of spending on research will be worthwhile. I don't see how this informs a discussion of alternate ways to distribute existing dyes. When Janelia is inventing new dyes and other things, I see them as a research institution. When they are deliberating between Plan A "wait for companies to license our molecules ... earn a few royalties" and Plan B "give everything away" it's not really research, it's closer to the business activity of sending out a product in return for compensation, either financial or good will. And at risk of being too repetitive, I'll say I am delighted that they are going for karma rather than license fees, even if it doesn't scale like a business, and even if there are dye-selling firms negatively affected by having to compete with $0 prices. You sound like the economist who said "I fear that our theoretical habits of approaching the problem with the assumption of more or less perfect knowledge on the part of almost everyone has made us somewhat blind..." Actually that's Hayek in this very paper. His big idea is that experts cannot have perfect knowledge of the system, hence a planned economy will always be less efficient than one in which individuals are free to transact using their individual, dispersed knowledge of their situation and preferences. I often see this objection that economists, with their mathematical models, treat people as perfectly rational actors always pursuing their self-interest like robots. But economists themselves seem quite sensitive to this difficulty of modeling behavior. Here's David Friedman in Hidden Order Suppose someone is rational only half the time. Since there is generally one right way of doing things and many wrong ways, the rational behavior can be predicted but the irrational cannot. If we assume he is rational, we predict his behavior correctly about half the time—far from perfect, but a lot better than nothing.... One reason to assume rationality is that it predicts behavior better than any alternative assumption. Another is that, when predicting a market or a mob, what matters is not the behavior of a single individual but the summed behavior of many. If irrational behavior is random, its effects may average out.And you're blatantly avoiding my followup.
This deal a blow to my strong thesis, but doesn't work for less restrictive qualifier. You can still benefit some, but you're silently equating those two positions as bad.
the material cost is negligible, and this becomes more true as you scale up production, but it's the know-how distribution that is the bottleneck
The goal of reaching every potential customer is so important...
Why?
waste
Also, you're treating research institutions like a business whereas it's not their role.
His entire reasoning follows from the prefect knowledge of the system, rules, and its actors.
Pretty par for the course in economics
Economics is based on the assumptions that people have reasonably simple objectives and choose the correct means to achieve them. Both assumptions are false—but useful.