Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.
Started by JNTB, July 25, 2006, 12:21:12 PM
QuoteThe problem with private R&D on stem cells is that no company will spend the money on stem cell research without knowing exactly how much has to be spent out before revenue is generated from an end-product or procedure.
Quote from: "JNTB"I already ranted about this on WWGHA, as some of you visit there. The problem with private R&D on stem cells is that no company will spend the money on stem cell research without knowing exactly how much has to be spent out before revenue is generated from an end-product or procedure. This is why government money is important. On the federal level, the government is in so much debt that I am honestly not looking for any money from the feds. However, Bush is being an idiot on this issue. The states are getting into the action, which is good, but why should we reinvent the wheel 10, 20 or 30 times? The states need to get together to join monies and research efforts. If states individually set out to develop and patent or copyright a process, we are likely to get into legal wars over who developed what first and who is infringing on another state's patents or copyrights, further politicizing the process. A unifying entity of some sort is needed.
Quote from: "iplaw"This precisely defines why I love the private sector. Unjustified or unsubstantiated scientific pursuits die a quick and justified death and my tax dollars are not expended on a wild scientific goose-chase. If you need any futher evidence as to what effect the government has on innovation and management, look no further than Amtrack.
Quote from: "iplaw"I have read in your other posts your stance on the debt and must say I am in your corner, but how does encouraging more government spending fit into your paradigm? This issue is precisely why we are in debt. We can't say NO to anything, and speculative scientific pursuits are no exception.
Quote from: "iplaw"The patent issues should be the least of our concerns, trust me, independent research efforts are dealt with on a daily basis and are no obstacle to the R&D process. We have mechanisms built into our system that easily deal with simultaneous independent invention.
Quote from: "iplaw"Lastly. Competition is GOOD. Having states or companies engaged in a competition to see who can create a solution only serves to increases the chance that one will succeede and that efficency is maintained in the process.
Quote from: "McQ"I disagree. Companies do invest without knowing exactly how much revenue will be generated or when it will be generated. They do the R&D hoping to profit, but never knowing for sure or how much. It's calculated risk. It's done all the time. We're doing it right now. And less government involvement is always better in these cases. Especially when we look to the government for oversight of stem cell research.
Quote from: "JNTB"Quote from: "McQ"I disagree. Companies do invest without knowing exactly how much revenue will be generated or when it will be generated. They do the R&D hoping to profit, but never knowing for sure or how much. It's calculated risk. It's done all the time. We're doing it right now. And less government involvement is always better in these cases. Especially when we look to the government for oversight of stem cell research.I don't know what company you work for, but I don't know of any company aimlessly spending money on R&D without knowing when the expenses will turn into a revenue stream. If there is any company spending money without any hope of revenue, I'm sure that the amount the company spending is relatively small, probably for a tax write-off.
QuoteWell, if left to the private sector, many of our discoveries would not have been made. It requires the dedication of money and time to make significant discoveries. There have been many research projects as part of NASA that would never have been done privately and still couldn't be done privately. So, the private sector is good at streamlining projects, but the private sector isn't always good at selecting projects based on the potential worth to society. A private company selects projects that provide actual worth to their stockholders.
QuoteI'm not encouraging more government spending - quite the opposite. The problem is that the President sets the pace for the nation. The President is cearly not in control of the economy or the personal desires of citizens, but the President does set the pace. Kennedy set the goal for a man on the moon by the end of the decade, and we did it by July 20, 1969. He didn't nod at all to any religious zealots, we left earth and set foot on another celestial body. What goal has Bush set? To repeal taxes on the fantastically wealthy and tell us that we are killing children. How does that qualify as leadership? His executive orders not only prevent the government from spending initial dollars on stem cell research, his executive orders also prevent leftover money from being spent on stem cell research. There are often grants given for research projects where not all the money is used. Scientists have the power to spend the money on other projects, but they'll be in a heap of trouble if they funnel the money toward stem cell research. If discovered, those scientists will never be eligible for federal money again and that's death to a career at the university level. Where does this lead us? Nowhere. We don't have to spend federal money, but let the states pool states' monies together for stem cell research. Where is the leadership on that? Nowhere. Bush is not a leader and he is putting the USA far, far behind.
QuoteNo matter how you paint it, private research has n altruistic goals.
QuoteNothing wrong with competition; however, when you don't know what you are competing for or against, competition is counterproductive.
QuoteDuplication of effort is anathema to competition.
Quote from: "McQ"Well, I never said they spend money "aimlessly". That would be foolish.
Quote from: "McQ"You aren't reading my post clearly, and therefore, misquoting me. I said it is a calculated risk. They make projections of what they think each drug has the capacity to return on the investment they put into it.
Quote from: "McQ"It's done with up to dozens of compounds at the same time within every company too. Most never even make it to market, but the R&D is spent anyway. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth, in fact. Our company invests more of its profits back into R&D than any other biotech company with drugs on the world market.
Quote from: "McQ"I've worked in this field for 17 years, so I think I'm capable of giving an informed opinion on how companies invest R&D dollars. Sorry if you're not aware of what companies invest and how they do it. To me, it just means that your opinion is uninformed. Take the time to get the annual reports of pharma and biotech companies. They're freely available. And then talk to the people who actually work for those companies, like me. They actually know what goes on in the inside.
Quote from: "JNTB"I know quite well how companies invest R&D dollars. I've never claimed that companies don't invest a lot of money. What I am talking about is pure research. Private companies do not do pure research. If they do, they allocate very few dollars for pure research. Most pure research occurs at the university level with government grants and sometimes private grants. Pure research involves basic discoveries, most of which have no known application and, therefore, cannot be turned into a revenue stream anytime soon.We are speculating on the value of stem cell research based on a few outcomes we have seen on an experimental level. We are not anywhere near providing a product or knowing what kind of product/process we should target. With stem cells, we are still at the pure research stage.