Live data from Hacker News

Capitalist Science

arxiv.org

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: Capitalist Science

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Big Pharma has no incentive to make a cheap cancer cure, it makes too much money off of current cancer treatment.

Except for their competition from other companies making other treatments, and the fact that their patents will run out eventually. Do you really believe that they're not interested in finding an actual cure? I believe that you're viewing these corporations as giant faceless evil monsters. But these corporations are run by, and certainly have researchers who are, real people whose mother was killed by cancer, and worry about that gene popping up in their own children.

the capitalist approach leads to biased results, again, because research has no incentive at that point to be honest

Certainly we've seen an unfortunate amount of dishonest results in recent years. Do you have any evidence that the problem is worse in the private sector? My expectation would be the opposite, because in the private sector you've eventually got to sell something that works, whereas in the public sector you can just keep applying for more grants, leaving behind your previous bogus results.

Let me also throw in that publicly-funded research is biased in a different way. Where the funds go is targeted not on any rational basis, but based on where the well-organized constituencies are. So what we see today is that per-victim, the amount spent on AIDS/HIV research is vastly disproportionate compared to other maladies whose sufferers are from more diffuse demographics. That is, comparing funding of AIDS research to, say, colon cancer, we spend FAR more for each AIDS patient than for each colon cancer patient. The politicization of science leads to waste such as the recent Solaris nonsense, where we allocate funding based on politics and posturing rather than where it will have the most utility across the whole nation.

Re: Capitalist Science

#62
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 inevi…

[deleted]

Re: Capitalist Science

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> *"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 tak…

I'd argue that a such a sweeping hypothesis as one made by the "paper" is so broad so as to be meaningless, and that you couldn't actually come up with enough facts to prove it one way or another. Just seems like troll bait, honestly.

I'd agree that the paper makes claims it can't begin to back up in the real world - I originally said pretty much that. But to say that we couldn't come up with enough facts to prove something seems to show a lack of imagination. No one's saying it's easy, but with good data and smart people it's not an unsolveable problem.

Really, though, I'm not sure the conclusion would do much to convince people. The debate between socialism and capitalism has never been purely economic. Most people's positions have a lot more to do with their core values and what they believe is fair.

Re: Capitalist Science

#64
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…

Governments should fund science that benefits society and that wouldn't otherwise be happening in a capitalist system.

But that's not what ends up happening. The funding doesn't get allocated such that the total utility would be maximized. Instead, it is directed toward those areas having a constituency that's better organized.

The result is that AIDS research -- its victims being fairly focused in a particular demographic -- gets about 350x more research funding per victim than does COPD. It gets 112x more than Hepatitis C, and 33x more than Alzheimer's disease. [1]

Government funding equals political funding. And this is what leads to scandals like Solaris, too. The government is not able to make rational decisions, as much as we might tell ourselves that it does. In a democracy, the funding will go to those causes that can muster the most votes.

[1] Source: http://www.fairfoundation.org/factslinks.htm

Re: Capitalist Science

#65

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 anathema to government construct. The state typically allows illusory property rights, but ultimately can and will defy these and treat them as a non-absolute concept. For instance, you are your own property, but the state defies this by extorting taxation from you. They defy you, and therefore your property in order to gain value from your work. Your work is also a result of your time, expertise…

> Property rights are anathema to government construct

That's a big word there, and I suspect it doesn't mean what you think it means. Property rights are a government construct. It's one of the primary reasons why governments exist. Without government to enforce these rights, you have no real claim on what you consider yours. Anyone can come along and take it away, and the only recourse you have is to steal it back, or steal something similar from someone else.

Since that's not a very ideal situation, thousands of years ago we decided not to do that anymore, and anyone who still did it, would be punished. That's basically what government is (and I'm amazed I'm even explaining this to anyone over 8 years old).

Re: Capitalist Science

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Big Pharma has no incentive to make a cheap cancer cure, it makes too much money off of current cancer treatment. Except for their competition from other companies making other treatments, and the fact that their patents will run out eventually. Do you really believe that they're not interested in finding an actual cure? I believe that you're viewing these corporations as giant faceless evil monsters. But these corpo…

> real people whose mother was killed by cancer, and worry about that gene popping up in their own children

Certainly everyone's mother was killed by cancer who works on cancer. And no, not everyone who works at a Big Pharma company is terrible, but the problem is more that Big Pharma is concentrated on improving their current prescription systems, rather than finding a cheap one-off cure. If Big Pharma wants to stop acting like a giant faceless evil monster, I will stop treating it as such. But how can you really justify current medical costs without saying that someone, somewhere in that industry is doing something disingenuous?

> The politicization of science leads to waste such as the recent Solaris nonsense, where we allocate funding based on politics and posturing rather than where it will have the most utility across the whole nation.

The problem is that there isn't enough demand to justify the cost, if we're doing it in a "if a person is diagnosed, they pay for it" manner that capitalism demands. Cancer research costs many, many billions of dollars due to many factors [1]. Say we're talking about leukemia research. 40,000 cases were diagnosed this year [2], but should each of those cases have to pay for the extremely high costs of research? Or, could we distribute it in a way such that each citizen pitches in a much smaller amount to help cancer research? In my opinion, the latter makes more sense, rather than punishing those who get sick.

Lastly as for credibility in the research world, there are definitely lots of examples I could look up. And also plenty of examples to look up for your cases that you mentioned as well. I think it would be too hard to count, no? But when you see things like the Tobacco Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Institute#In_popular_cu...) it's hard to say that we should research everything privately, because the conflict of interest is just too high. In my opinion, publicly funded research could / should be reformed, but there's not as obvious of a bias one way or the other there.

[1] http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jan2011/nci-12.htm [2] http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/leuks.html

Re: Capitalist Science

#67
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inevi…

[deleted]

So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? If so you're a saint, but I think most Americans do not. This is understandable - if we live in a society that encourages us to pursue individual success above others, improvement of society is not our top priority clearly.

I certainly agree the government is not an ideal re-allocator of wealth. I think it needs to be reformed. But saying "Hey this isn't ideal, so we should throw it away" is kind of silly, no?

Re: Capitalist Science

#68
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? If so you're a saint, but I think most Americans do not. This is understandable - if we live in a society that encourages us to pursue individual success above others, improvement of society is not our top priority clearly. I certainly agree the government is not an ideal re-allocator of wealth. I think it need…

> So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers?

One, you don't necessarily need to donate to different charities for every possible disease. You could donate to a charity "fund" sort of like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

Two, I think most people don't donate a lot of money because they feel they are already contributing a lot to benefit society via taxation.

Re: Capitalist Science

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? If so you're a saint, but I think most Americans do not. This is understandable - if we live in a society that encourages us to pursue individual success above others, improvement of society is not our top priority clearly. I certainly agree the government is not an ideal re-allocator of wealth. I think it need…

> So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? One, you don't necessarily need to donate to different charities for every possible disease. You could donate to a charity "fund" sort of like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Two, I think most people don't donate a lot of money because they feel they are already contributing a lot to benefit society vi…

> You could donate to a charity "fund" sort of like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

So some sort of central fund for cancer research, where bureaucrats distribute funding to constituent organizations... Hmm where have I heard that before? ;)

> they feel they are already contributing a lot to benefit society via taxation.

So you _do_ admit it is benefitting society?

Re: Capitalist Science

#70
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

So you're saying that you yourself contribute regularly to heart, lung, skin, eye, and bone marrow cancers? If so you're a saint, but I think most Americans do not. This is understandable - if we live in a society that encourages us to pursue individual success above others, improvement of society is not our top priority clearly. I certainly agree the government is not an ideal re-allocator of wealth. I think it need…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN