SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the still-paid-for-by-the-taxpayer/consumer dept.
For the first time in the post–World War II era, the federal government no longer funds a majority of the basic research carried out in the United States. Data from ongoing surveys by the National Science Foundation (NSF) show that federal agencies provided only 44% of the $86 billion spent on basic research in 2015. The federal share, which topped 70% throughout the 1960s and '70s, stood at 61% as recently as 2004 before falling below 50% in 2013.
The sharp drop in recent years is the result of two contrasting trends—a flattening of federal spending on basic research over the past decade and a significant rise in corporate funding of fundamental science since 2012.
[...] The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is the major driver behind the recent jump in corporate basic research [...] investment in basic research soared from $3 billion in 2008 to $8.1 billion in 2014, according to the most recent NSF data by business sector. Spending on basic research by all U.S. businesses nearly doubled over that same period, from $13.9 billion to $24.5 billion.
Basic research comprises only about one-sixth of the country's spending on all types of R&D, which totaled $499 billion in 2015. Applied makes up another one-sixth, whereas the majority, some $316 billion, is development. Almost all of that is funded by industry and done inhouse, as companies try to convert basic research into new drugs, products, and technologies that they hope will generate profits.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday March 10 2017, @06:10PM (1 child)
Why do you want to gut the people's programs, and narrow our funding options down to only private corporations? Don't take such an orthodox view of competition, thinking the only good kind is within the private capitalist market system and all other forms are inferior. To the contrary, the more models we try, the better. I get a chuckle out of private businesses blowing their horns about them being ruthless competitors driven by market forces to excel, when in fact the biggest are doing all they can to kill the market and gain monopoly power.
Private funding has serious limitations. There are many projects that are too big for private corporations and the stock market to tackle. They need lots and lots of help from the people. The most ambitious railroad projects, such as the Transcontinental Railroad and the Channel Tunnel, needed a lot of public help. When it came to automobile roads, private companies made a real mess. They pulled crap like deliberately lengthening routes, to extract more revenue from travelers. It was public outcry over such practices that lead to the creation of the AAA, and when that still wasn't enough to stop the attempts to fleece travelers, finally the numbered highway system in 1926.
No way could the moon landing have been done in the 1960s without public help, in more than just funds. Needed public oversight. Needed vast resources poured into applicable research, public universities all encouraged to help solve the thousands of details that needed to be worked out. With the backing of the people, NASA had the resources to build the Saturn V rockets. Those rockets were not COTS, nowhere close. They were full of custom work and research results. They used extremely expensive methods to build the rockets sooner, stuff like hand grinding weld joins to smooth them, rather than wait on improvements in manufacturing. Lot of advances came out of the efforts to put a man on the moon.
As for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, remember how that played when Mitt Romney announced a desire to throw Big Bird under the troop bus.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday March 11 2017, @02:47AM
Why do you want to gut the people's programs, and narrow our funding options down to only private corporations?
Because it doesn't work. Your ideas have been tried, multiple times in multiple places and do not work. There are very few things a government (i.e. institutionalized force) do better and I suspect it is only because our civilizational tech is insufficiently advanced to replace the government in those areas.... yet.
Government drones at the NSF are not accountable, they suffer zero consequences from dumping hundreds of millions (or even billions) into unproductive lines of research. On the other hand the rewards for playing politics the way the Party wants them to are many. Do not look only at the few good things that come from government funded research, one must also account for the many good things those seized tax dollars didn't do. The ledger is always badly out of balance.
To the contrary, the more models we try, the better.
Ah, you get close to the No True Scottsman here. We have tried Socialism / Statism / Fascism how many times? But I'm to believe you when you say that if we only try harder, "Once more, with feeling!" it will work.
I get a chuckle out of private businesses blowing their horns about them being ruthless competitors driven by market forces to excel, when in fact the biggest are doing all they can to kill the market and gain monopoly power.
Yes. And what is the one and only way for businessmen to kill the market and gain monopoly power? Get into bed with the government. Every. Single. Time.
Private funding has serious limitations. There are many projects that are too big for private corporations and the stock market to tackle. They need lots and lots of help from the people. The most ambitious railroad projects, such as the Transcontinental Railroad and the Channel Tunnel, needed a lot of public help.
Actually, no. The Transcontinental Railroad probably needed imminent domain, like any road, rail project, etc. It needed no other help, railroads were being laind everywhere, the coasts would have soon connected. The government had policy goals and incentivized it happening sooner, that may or may not have been net positive or negative. Whether the public joint stock corporation really needs to retain it's government sponsorship is even a question I think should be laid upon the table for debate. I certainly think they should limited, probably have a firm sunset date, etc. The current corporate model tends to privatize rewards and socialize risk.
When it came to automobile roads, private companies made a real mess.
Roads are actually an enumerated power given to the Fed Gov but I suspect that in most cases letting States have most of the responsibility is the wise move. The Interstate Highway system is probably a justifiable exception, the name is self explanatory.
No way could the moon landing have been done in the 1960s without public help, in more than just funds.
You say that like it is a good thing. It probably was, not as science but as a PR stunt in the Cold War. But it isn't really debatable that going to the moon decades before we were really ready has stunted our space efforts. But when Musk or Bezos finally get there, odds are it won't be a grab some rocks and scoot deal.
As for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, remember how that played when Mitt Romney announced a desire to throw Big Bird under the troop bus.
That wasn't a rational argument, it was shameful political rhetoric. Successful because Romney was a fool who hadn't a clue how to play dirty in the big leagues. But Big Bird sold out to HBO soon after that and right now they have no photogenic mascots at PBS to save them. Besides, all their children's programming is usually viewed on Sprout now anyway. Now all they would have to argue is saving Stuff Rich White People Like, hard to justify stealing tax dollars for stuff that outta be on BBCA anyway. Well that and NOVA which would move to Science Channel or Discovery if PBS really couldn't stay on the air with only donations from viewers like YOU.. (and corporations, big foundations, etc.)
In a saner world Romney would have instantly fired off a rejoinder like, "In a sane world PBS would be getting paid by CTW to air Sesame Street. Have you seen how much coin they rake in from the merchandising? It is more profitable than those inane cartoons explicitly designed around toys. But no, PBS is content to throw our tax dollars at their friends. But with public debt at current levels we can't afford to be dumb anymore."