It would be interesting to see a comparative ROI study of several large, publicly-funded, projects similar to the HGP. Such data would be useful in debates about policy, one would think.
It would be interesting if that king of reporters started using actual return in their ROI numerator, not the investiment.
I'm quite tired of people claimming that building a bridge to nowhere incresed the economy just because the spending is added to the GDP. And the article uses exactly that kind of accounting.
What? The HGP was tiny compared to the number of biologists, computer scientists, and entrepreneurs working in genetics research today, both public and private, funded by both taxpayers and investors collectively. The HGP was simply a loose organization that collected a massive amount of human and capital resources to map the genome. The research done in the project set the ground work and standard for much of genetics work today, not to mention propelled cheaper and faster sequencing technologies.
Myriad genetics is a $2.5 billion market cap genetics firm that built its entire company around only a small subset of the human genome (think dozens out of tens of thousands) and they got started a decade before the HGP did. That one company is just a small taste of what's to come.
It's only a bridge to nowhere if you can't see the future.
But of course we all know that the greatest ROI of all is tax cuts for the hallowed .1% job creators so they can continue creating jobs and wealth for the grateful masses.
I'm quite tired of people claimming that building a bridge to nowhere incresed the economy just because the spending is added to the GDP. And the article uses exactly that kind of accounting.