Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Capitalist Science

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 82 posts

Re: Capitalist Science

#51

Post by ronaldx »

[deleted] wrote: post #40
ronaldx wrote: post #16

Wow, I couldn't disagree with this premise more. I believe the exact opposite. Capitalist science already happens - that's how capitalism works. If something has the potential to be directly turned into profit, people create businesses around that. Governments professing to be capitalist shouldn't interfere with that process. Academic science ought not to be capitalist. Governments should fund science that benefits s…

[deleted]

I didn't actually exclude that as a possibility: the existence of non-profits is indeed part of a capitalist system.

But, I don't think a huge depth or breadth of science gets done that way.

A democratic government should seek to fund science through taxes, if that's what you're asking, yes: we collect taxes to benefit society and science provides an efficient benefit.

Re: Capitalist Science

#52

Post by dylandrop »

[deleted] wrote: post #40
ronaldx wrote: post #16

Wow, I couldn't disagree with this premise more. I believe the exact opposite. Capitalist science already happens - that's how capitalism works. If something has the potential to be directly turned into profit, people create businesses around that. Governments professing to be capitalist shouldn't interfere with that process. Academic science ought not to be capitalist. Governments should fund science that benefits s…

[deleted]

No serious funding for scientific research would be accomplished this way.

>"rather than using the force of gov't to coerce every citizen into paying for it"

Oh please. If we're living a capitalist society, we have to realize that citizens are not incentivized to give a significant portion of their money for the improvement of society, so it's time to stop treating things as though free markets will come in and inevitably save the day without government intervention. Specifically, talking about medical research, there is no incentive for me or any other citizen to fund leukemia research, or heart disease research, and I certainly don't donate money to both causes on a regular enough basis to provide enough monetary support for this research. Unless we rethink our current economic model, this is just not a possibility.

Re: Capitalist Science

#53

Post by mcv »

[deleted] wrote: post #19
mcv wrote: post #11

But this "capitalist science" has already existed for ages, hasn't it? Plenty of companies do science, monopolize the results through patents, and exploit them for private profit. That's capitalist science. > The economic structure of basic science is currently socialist, funded by the public at large through taxes for the benefit of the public at large. Yes, but increasingly less so. The public may fund it, but too…

[deleted]

> Nope, patents are purely a governmental construct.

Exactly. They are a government construct to enable the capitalization of science.

(Note: the fact that it's a government construct does not contradict anything I said.)

Re: Capitalist Science

#54

Post by eatitraw »

dllthomas wrote: post #46
[deleted] wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Maybe, but not necessarily. Let's imagine a hypothetical piece of research that every single person wants, and wants enough to willingly contribute their share (per capita, or wealth/income adjusted, whatever) if that is required in order to have the research done. However, if they value the money they would be contributing more than the marginal change in the research for lack of their funding, they might rationally…

Assurance contracts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts

Example: you start a project on something like kickstarter, people contribute the amount of money they like. Then after the project reaches its goal, the research starts. If goal isn't reached then people get their money back.

Re: Capitalist Science

#55

Post by mcv »

samolang wrote: post #33
grimtrigger wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property rights are a purely governmental construct. But without them, capitalism doesn't work. Not sure why intellectual property is considered any different.

Property rights are for protecting scarce resources. Intellectual property is not a scarce resource.

That's why capitalist science is a stupid idea in the first place, but it's still how the current system works. Corporations like artificial scarcity, so stuff can be owned, capitalized and exploited for profit.

Re: Capitalist Science

#56

Post by wes-exp »

jlcx wrote: post #32

"Basic science is currently a socialist enterprise, funded by the taxpayer, with the results available to society at large." One current problem is that this is that the results are not always available to society at large; I've seen a lot of stories on HN about attempts to change that. "Since the benefits of scientific advances are consumed by everyone, no individual has a strong financial incentive to invest in bas…

I don't think this it is the fault of patent law that companies do not fund basic research. I think is it just the fact that it is very hard to profit from basic research, fundamentally. If anything, patent law (for all its faults) at least tries to create some incentives.

Re: Capitalist Science

#57

Post by mordae »

> channel more money into basic science

This has been already experimentally proven to be false. I have several friends in the basic Biology research and they have mentioned several times that companies explicitly fund only the applied research where they can reap the fruits early and not in 10 or so years.

Re: Capitalist Science

#58

Post by samolang »

mcv wrote: post #55
samolang wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Property rights are for protecting scarce resources. Intellectual property is not a scarce resource.

That's why capitalist science is a stupid idea in the first place, but it's still how the current system works. Corporations like artificial scarcity, so stuff can be owned, capitalized and exploited for profit.

> Corporations like artificial scarcity, so stuff can be owned, capitalized and exploited for profit.

That may be true of some corporations (most notably in companies that have already achieved success and thus have an incentive to maintain the status quo), but it's not a universal rule [1] and patents aren't the only method of maintaining artificial scarcity [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GE...

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-patents-2012-11

Re: Capitalist Science

#59

Post by dllthomas »

eatitraw wrote: post #54
dllthomas wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but not necessarily. Let's imagine a hypothetical piece of research that every single person wants, and wants enough to willingly contribute their share (per capita, or wealth/income adjusted, whatever) if that is required in order to have the research done. However, if they value the money they would be contributing more than the marginal change in the research for lack of their funding, they might rationally…

Assurance contracts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contracts Example: you start a project on something like kickstarter, people contribute the amount of money they like. Then after the project reaches its goal, the research starts. If goal isn't reached then people get their money back.

That probably improves things - certainly, it eliminates the risk of "I gave and the research didn't happen anyway" - but (as typically employed) it does not eliminate the issue: the odds that my contribution will be deciding is low.

If you had a contract that required defined (possibly in terms of wealth/income) contribution from everyone and would only go if unanimously accepted, that would eliminate this problem but raises obvious logistical issues.

Re: Capitalist Science

#60

Post by [deleted] »

dllthomas wrote: post #46
[deleted] wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Maybe, but not necessarily. Let's imagine a hypothetical piece of research that every single person wants, and wants enough to willingly contribute their share (per capita, or wealth/income adjusted, whatever) if that is required in order to have the research done. However, if they value the money they would be contributing more than the marginal change in the research for lack of their funding, they might rationally…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN