Live data from Hacker News

Capitalist Science

arxiv.org

11–20 of 82 posts

Re: Capitalist Science

#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 much of the results get copyrighted by Elsevier and patented by other parties.

> Capitalist science will better align the incentives of scientists with taxpayer interests,

No it won't. It will align the incentives of scientists with the interests of corporations.

> channel more money into basic science, lower your taxes, and generally improve the quality of your life.

Nice talk. I think you're trying to sell me something, but I'm not buying it.

Re: Capitalist Science

#12
post #4

If you edited this abstract to replace Capitalist with some other philosophy and it's concepts (say "Buddhist" or "Environmentalist"), it would have roughly the same level of validity, which is to say, not much.

Have you read the article? It's interesting and follows the individual reward premise of capitalism, although absolutely impracticable not to mention it only makes sense in a very limited number of fields.

Re: Capitalist Science

#13

Contradiction in terms, given that blue-sky, basic research has gone away in industry and academia and it's capitalism's fault. Capitalism is great at technology and incremental innovation, but bad at science. This sort of thing is why a functional society needs some aspects of both (socialism and communism) in it. That's also why I dislike the term "data scientist". I'm not a scientist, because I'm not impartially s…

> *"Capitalism is great at technology and incremental innovation, but bad at science."

Be careful with those broad strokes - they're likely to be a result of selective perception unless supported by external fact.

I actually read the paper (not just the abstract), and I'll be the first to agree that ant that the paper is a little basic, and it makes too many "economics in a vacuum" assumptions.

If you're going to take the time to disagree, though, you really should be prepared to back it up with something. Anyone can spout their opinion ("Capitalism is bad at science") as fact, but that alone is meaningless and adds nothing to the conversation.

Re: Capitalist Science

#14
post #2

I am torn between tears and laughter. I wish science belongs to humanity forever.

Science does. Each discovery is the heritage of humanity, the beneficiary of being in the world that we are in. This suggestion is nothing more than an attempt to steal that heritage and dole it back out in limited amounts, expecting us to be grateful for it.

Re: Capitalist Science

#15

Contradiction in terms, given that blue-sky, basic research has gone away in industry and academia and it's capitalism's fault. Capitalism is great at technology and incremental innovation, but bad at science. This sort of thing is why a functional society needs some aspects of both (socialism and communism) in it. That's also why I dislike the term "data scientist". I'm not a scientist, because I'm not impartially s…

How is it that basic research has gone away in industry? Don't we see really interesting stuff coming from Google, pharma, all kinds of materials stuff that we never even see going into textiles and building products... Why would you say that (a) Capitalism has caused basic research to go away, and (b) that it's bad at science in general? Added later: after a moment's thought, it seems to me that we have a great exam…

The problem is that most science that is funded by private companies is done only to further their funding companies' interests, not those of the general populace. For example, Big Pharma has no incentive to make a cheap cancer cure, it makes too much money off of current cancer treatment. Furthermore, the capitalist approach leads to biased results, again, because research has no incentive at that point to be honest. (Imagine if the only crop research was done by Monsanto.) Capitalism hasn't caused basic research to go away, but if we only rely on science from capitalism, there will undoubtedly be a ton of problems to face there.

Re: Capitalist Science

#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 society and that wouldn't otherwise be happening in a capitalist system. We should expect that to be indirectly-profitable (not profitable for the inventor) and loss-making work with long-term benefit. That's what we pay taxes for.

Academic science is already far too capitalist for my liking - the existing funding system requires scientists to chase money, acting as poor mimics of capitalists, while corporate-sponsored grants mean lobbyists are getting their favoured R&D done on the cheap.

(Edited to add: that said, the paper is still worth reading and makes good points about how we identify the value of science)

Re: Capitalist Science

#18
Article starts off with brushes that are too wide, but gets interesting around Appendix B where he talks about a sort of "Market for Hypotheses". Interesting concept, but doesn't talk much about the incentive structure needed for companies to play the game fairly. Also the market would have to be government created and run, a responsibility the ACA should make anyone skeptic of.

Re: Capitalist Science

#19
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]

Re: Capitalist Science

#20
I'd argue that our scientific process and development would improve exponentially as result of replacing the old Socialist, state funded model with a voluntary consumer model.

Private enterprise is already financing ambitious projects once sought only by state provisions on their own merit. Such as Virgin Galactic. I think if innovation in these fields were brought into the responsibility of private investment, investors would see it as their job and not the state. In other words the state monopolises on grandiose scientific projects, making it too difficult for the average enterprise to compete.

This is probably due to the states mechanism of 'bigging up' its own achievements in order to justify its own existence.

I think there's a bright future for technology and science in the private sphere. Facebook working on AI is another recent example. Google have been funding scientific studies mostly in tech for years. We need to embrace this.

Big businesses understand that scientific breakthrough could well be the next biggest product on the market, even on a simple basis of materials. Producing newer, stronger, more durable materials is not just benefit to the producers, but to the consumers. State science rarely deals with practical innovation that we as consumers can benefit directly from either.

Almost every business, big and small has some form of R&D department or group, and more are following suite. It's becoming a standard and I think in this model, we will see our species's biggest gains in advancement.

I think another important point is that consumers have a choice when it comes to private enterprise, whereas they don't when these funds are forcibly extorted through taxation. Those on minimum wage can barely afford essentials, let alone the money to fund space programs.

Long live private enterprise, long live Capitalism!

Post reply on HN