|
|
|
|
|
by jrumbut
1478 days ago
|
|
I would also say, and I'm surprised this needs to be said in a community that is so connected to the Open Source and startup cultures, that just because something is valuable doesn't mean it's possible to make a business out of it. Imagine research into a technique for getting better blood pressure readings from people who are so nervous around medical settings that their blood pressure spikes (or more basic research into the mechanisms of blood pressure and anxiety). This is a valuable thing to society (more accurate data informing treatment decisions for individuals, screening for physically demanding jobs, life insurance, forecasting medical spending for Medicare and the like), but it's not worth a lot to anyone in particular. For the field you described originally, complex imaging devices, there are only so many users of that research so it's conceivable that work could be taken up by a corporate R&D department. There are all kinds of other very useful research topics that are very valuable to humanity as a whole but it's not clear exactly who should pay for it (I'm not saying you aren't aware of this BTW, hopefully I'm adding support to your argument). In those cases it makes a lot of sense to take a fraction of a cent from everyone and pay for it that way, as we currently do. |
|
The problem with universities pushing research that clearly has some short-term financial reward (due solely to patents and exclusive licenses under the 1980s Bayh-Dole law) is that they neglect basic research and so close the door to the potential of truly fundamental discoveries like that. This is generally known as the corporatization of the American academic system and it's really been a disaster for basic technological advances.