And yet the history of ingenuity and innovation is also slow when there is little immediate incentive or reason. History is littered with *gradual* achivements. Major breakthroughs and drastic changes often accompany major events. (a-bomb, space race, war, social needs, etc.)
Again I bring up the a-bomb example just as pigglet did - did not the world's most brilliant minds combine in the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos and all around the country during World War II to work under a non-private project?
I fully advocate and support private incentives and innovation but I think the issue here at hand is a matter of time.
If they are looking for an AIDS cure in a span of a few years, then you really cannot count on private to put it out. In that same way, it is true for the a-bomb. There was a war to win, and the brightest minds all worked togther not in so much as to earn money, but not only out of curiosity and a will to learn more about the world, but to win a war, they achieved something people thought impossible.
Personally anyways I think separating current 'research' and 'care' facilities would help. Going to UCLA, for example, they have one of the world's best AIDS care and research facility.
Unfortunately, with such a large group of people with AIDS, much of the money and effort is diverted away form research and is spent on care.
I would not mind if they were more separate to be more efficient and direct in their goals. Heck I think it would help in such a an endeavour if the brightest minds in the world worked
together and not against each other to solve the problem, rather than take the same route twice.
Quote:
|
RB - you are not going to convince me that "internationalizing" intellectual property is going to benefit the world more than allowing companies and researchers to "own" their creations.
|
But then I ask, if no one is going to convince you otherwise, why bother debating if your mind is set up? I mean if you believe in it so much, fine, but if your mind is already set, what is the point?