Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
Mr. Mephisto,
I thought I clearly limited my statements to research that produces commercial products. If taxpayers fund research for commercial products, such as cures/medications, then we certainly are entitled to a concession on the price of the merchandise or a return of our initial investment.
|
Perhaps you did, but if so I didn't notice.
I suspect you'll find that most government funded research is not aimed at commercial gain by private corporations. That's why private commercial operations undertake their
own research.
What I have heard here so far seems to be complaints about taxes being spent on research and that the "market economy" better addresses the need for scientific progress. I disagree.
Let me state
again that I am
NOT opposed to privately funded research. But I
AM opposed to abandoning all state-sponsored, state-funded research and relying
only on private corporations.
If that was the case, they would focus only on what would return the most benefit. Terrible disases that may not have hundreds of thousands of suffers would be ignored, because the "potential market" would be so small. It beggars belief that some believe this is the best way forward in scientific medical research.
I wonder how much money was made by Rutherford when he led the Cavendish Laboratory in the 20's and 30's investigating the workings of the atom? Very little, but this work has had almost immeasurable benefit. How much money was made by Alexander Fleming due to his discovery of penicilin? I would hazzard a guess that he did not make much money, and that he undertook this research (with state funding) for the benefit of mankind.
There are many many examples. Sure, let the big companies concentrate on erectile dysfunction, but when it comes to discovering a cure for cystic fibrosis, Parkinsons or cancer, I'm still very happy that there are many non-private, state-sponsored research labs working away diligently at this problem too.
Quote:
|
This is not "I," it is about "we" since we funded the research in the first place.
|
Not so. The government funded the research. How are you to know that the actual dollars from the taxes you paid were not spent on traffic lights outside a school and the scientific research was paid for by import duties on Russian steel (for example)?
Governments have many sources of income, if you will, and they apportion this the best way they see fit. It is not really accurate to point at one area of expenditure and say "my taxes [sic] paid for that".
Quote:
|
Your position is insulting to me since you are otherwise advocating that taxdollars be utilized to fund research and then corporations reap the profits from the commercial goods we funded the R&D on.
|
I am not advocating that at all. I'm arguing against Mondak's assertion that the government should not fund any scientific research at all, and that it is left to the private sector entirely.
Also, I never intended to insult you. I disagree with your assertions, but I'm not
insulted by them.
Quote:
|
How you warped that into support for cheaper tickets into state parks or cheaper cigarattes after we funded research into determining their harmful effects is beyond me.
|
It was an analogy.
Quote:
|
I think you need to clarify how you consider opposition to corporations profitting from taxpayer funded research, at the expense to the taxpayer, a greedy "I" statement before you ask me to clarify any more of my statements.
|
I asked you to clarify your statement because I simply did not understand it. I fail to see how you could take umbrage at my trying to ensure I better understand your position!
With regards to the statement above, where have I stated that government funding should result in profit for private companies at the expense of taxpayers? Indeed, the position I have is almost the opposite; to whit that I believe relying
only on private sector research will result in
MORE expense to the people.
Mr Mephisto