zapatos Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 2 hours ago, Photon Guy said: State funded still means it's funded by tax dollars so to get more funding that would mean cutting back on other stuff or raising taxes. No, those are not the only options. To name a few, money comes from leasing areas for oil or mineral exploration. When the economy grows taxes grow without raising them. In addition, funding for some items is limited by time so when the time is up the funding can be used for other purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 (edited) 57 minutes ago, CharonY said: Well, for starters we cannot afford lobbyists. One should perhaps also note that price gouging is a bigger issue in the US where prices are mostly unregulated. There are studies out there showing that while the US spends more on prescription drugs, but relative to spending does not provide more development than other countries. Some countries with strong pharmaceutical companies (UK, Switzerland) are more productive in that regard. And I do think that lawmakers and companies are well aware of that. Ok. On lobbying: A chap with just nine shares in Tesla has just knocked Musk off his financial perch by having a judge anull his 50-odd billion pay packet. Appeals are on, of course, but I thought "That's interesting". It was ultimately financed by "no win, no fee" legal help. 43 minutes ago, exchemist said: I think Big Pharma will be speaking of innovation in the sense of product development rather than ab initio research. Product development is extremely costly - and high risk. You have to balance that with the cost to the tax payer at research level. How much of that research is taken on by pharmaceutical companies vs not used? This article relates to research access but it mentions the total spend: Taxpayers spend $140 billion funding science each year — but can't access many of the results Edited February 1 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 1 hour ago, StringJunky said: Ok. On lobbying: A chap with just nine shares in Tesla has just knocked Musk off his financial perch by having a judge anull his 50-odd billion pay packet. Appeals are on, of course, but I thought "That's interesting". It was ultimately financed by "no win, no fee" legal help. You have to balance that with the cost to the tax payer at research level. How much of that research is taken on by pharmaceutical companies vs not used? This article relates to research access but it mentions the total spend: Taxpayers spend $140 billion funding science each year — but can't access many of the results I think with Big Pharma the problem is the Cinderella areas. They can make billions out of cancer but some of these 3rd world conditions barely get a look in because there's no money in it for them. We obviously need both approaches. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 2 hours ago, exchemist said: I think Big Pharma will be speaking of innovation in the sense of product development rather than ab initio research. Product development is extremely costly - and high risk. This is especially true for trials, though at the same time, there is the argument that in the USA the balance might be a bit off. After all, innovation happens at similar or lower rates in countries where pharmaceutical prices are regulated. That is not to say that they have no role- quite the contrary. While many pharmaceutical discovery is probably more prevalent in academia, bringing them to market often requires the formation of a spin-off to finance the necessary steps. But one could make the argument that this is less innovation, but more routine development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 4 hours ago, CharonY said: I am surprised as it sound fairly low. Travel and accommodations alone would eat a fair chunk of it. Heck, I pay as much if I need get a tech in to do repairs that I cannot do myself. Seems low to me, too, but not more than an order of magnitude low. You’d probably be living at the site, but you need food and water, and equipment. And it would depend on the duration of the expedition. Even it’s it more, there’s still a huge divide between that and a trip to the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 5 hours ago, Photon Guy said: State funded still means it's funded by tax dollars so to get more funding that would mean cutting back on other stuff or raising taxes. I vote "cutting back on other stuff". Have you seen some of the ridiculous pork included in the average spending bill? There are ways to make tax funding work for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photon Guy Posted February 2 Author Share Posted February 2 21 hours ago, exchemist said: Have you not heard of Elon Musk’s Space X? Speaking of Elon Musk, I would like to point out that Howard Wolowitz got to meet him, lucky guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 4 hours ago, swansont said: Seems low to me, too, but not more than an order of magnitude low. You’d probably be living at the site, but you need food and water, and equipment. And it would depend on the duration of the expedition. Even it’s it more, there’s still a huge divide between that and a trip to the moon. Absolutely. I don't really do fieldwork, though once was peripherally involved in budgeting related to a space mission. The numbers did not seem real when you are used to typical (even instrument-intensive) lab experiments. 3 hours ago, Phi for All said: I vote "cutting back on other stuff". Have you seen some of the ridiculous pork included in the average spending bill? There are ways to make tax funding work for everyone. Or, you know, tax wealth or reduce subsidies for companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 3 minutes ago, CharonY said: Or, you know, tax wealth or reduce subsidies for companies. Those too, but I was thinking specifically about stuff like the F-35 JSF earmarks. We spent an extra US$1.5B so they can give the DoD 18 more planes than they asked for. Military overspending isn't necessarily done by the military. This is enough on its own to fund a LOT of dinosaur research, and apparently the DoD wouldn't even miss the planes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 5 hours ago, Photon Guy said: Speaking of Elon Musk, I would like to point out that Howard Wolowitz got to meet him, lucky guy. Who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 11 hours ago, CharonY said: Absolutely. I don't really do fieldwork, though once was peripherally involved in budgeting related to a space mission. The numbers did not seem real when you are used to typical (even instrument-intensive) lab experiments. Same experience with military folks working on weapons systems, thinking we had a science budget like they had, when it was about 1% or less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photon Guy Posted February 2 Author Share Posted February 2 5 hours ago, exchemist said: Who? Howard Wolowitz, this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Whoa! You mean Elon Musk got to meet HIM!?! Golly. Can't believe I missed that!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photon Guy Posted February 2 Author Share Posted February 2 14 hours ago, Phi for All said: I vote "cutting back on other stuff". Have you seen some of the ridiculous pork included in the average spending bill? There are ways to make tax funding work for everyone. I agree on cutting back, the problem is getting enough people to agree so that it's done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 14 minutes ago, Photon Guy said: I agree on cutting back, the problem is getting enough people to agree so that it's done. Well, no, that's not the problem. We already have enough people who agree that Congress giving the DoD more than they ask for is wasteful and needs cutting back. The problem is that Congress hasn't represented what The People want since the 80s. Corporations lobby for pork spending, and that's who Congress represents. To fix the problem, we need to change how politicians receive campaign funding. Block the corporate money so representation goes back to The People. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, swansont said: Same experience with military folks working on weapons systems, thinking we had a science budget like they had, when it was about 1% or less I knew I should have weaponized my research! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 6 hours ago, CharonY said: I knew I should have weaponized my research! What I make is classified as a WMD by the American Government. Phosphine, liquified at 700 psi, tends to blow-up quite nicely on escape to atmosphere ) I seem to recall the FBI coming up to tour/investigate our facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photon Guy Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 So if Jurassic Park was real I wonder just how it would work out, if it would be a disaster like it was in the movies or if they would be able to make it work and just how successful it would be at producing funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 1 hour ago, Photon Guy said: So if Jurassic Park was real I wonder just how it would work out, if it would be a disaster like it was in the movies or if they would be able to make it work and just how successful it would be at producing funds. I often wonder things like that myself. But then the buzz wears off and I go looking for some snacks... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 Just an add on to earlier comments regarding pharna investments https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/big-pharma-spends-billions-more-on-executives-and-stockholders-than-on-rd/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now