|
|
|
|
|
|
by mooreds
4656 days ago
|
|
|
This is why government funding of science is so important. The government funds long term projects that couldn't possibly be 'brought to market' by a private company: weather data, gps, even that old chestnut, the internet, the postal service. The timeframe is too long, so we collectively decide to pay for basic research with the understanding that some chunk of it might be useful at some time. Basic science is not an activity that jives well with the profit motive (again, because of the long time frames), yet it is a required foundation for the 'value add' products that companies are good at bringing to market. So, the question is, do we want to continue to invest in long term thinking via the government? Do we want to structure other institutions (foundations, corporations, non profits, universities) in such a way they have an incentive to undertake long term projects? Can we have individuals take part in this? Do we want to abandon big projects with uncertain return? |
|
|
I think it's a stretch to say that these things "couldn't possibly [have been] brought to market by a private company" -- especially not only because it was government that happened to fund those things (I mean, doesn't the existence UPS/FedEx pretty strongly imply that a private postal service is/would have been viable?)
> so we collectively decide to pay for basic research with the understanding that some chunk of it might be useful at some time
That's not quite what happens. _Some_ collectively decide that _all_ should pay for basic research.