Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 30 2017, @02:59AM   Printer-friendly
from the profit-driven dept.

A new article reveals that large corporations are investing less in science. From 1980 to 2006, publications by company scientists have declined in a range of industries. The result holds across a range of industries.

Investigators also found that the value attributed to scientific research has dropped, whereas the value attributed to technical knowledge (as measured by patents) has remained stable. Companies appear to be focusing more on developing existing knowledge and commercializing it, rather than on creating new knowledge through basic research.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171127124929.htm

[Abstract]: The decline of science in corporate R&D

Remembering AT&T Bell Labs, IBM Labs, Xerox PARC, HP Labs, TI, etc. In the current political and economic situation, do you think companies in USA have the will and means to reverse this decline?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday November 30 2017, @07:11AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 30 2017, @07:11AM (#603358) Journal

    increasing their tax burden by anywhere from 30% to 400%.

    A number near zero (or as in my case, multiple times, was zero) isn't going to grow much.

    The number of PhDs the USA is going to create is going to drop to... well, close to zero

    Won't happen. Taxes just aren't a big problem. I grant we might see a small decline in enrollment, but given the current massive oversupply of PhDs in most fields, I'm not seeing what is supposed to be negative about this.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Offtopic=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by http on Thursday November 30 2017, @09:36AM (1 child)

    by http (1920) on Thursday November 30 2017, @09:36AM (#603371)

    The fact that you can't follow the basic math [washingtonpost.com] makes me doubt your suggestion that you went to university.

    Or maybe you can, but you don'twant to follow it, maybe it threatens your livelyhood? I'm just guessing at your excuses, I don't know you aside from the shit you post on SN.

    --
    I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 30 2017, @05:26PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 30 2017, @05:26PM (#603527) Journal
      Look my view is that we should have less taxes, and grad student stipends are a good thing to not tax.

      But it's not the end of the world here even should this particular proposal end up in law. This grad student, for example, can move to a region with lower tuition and living costs. The school can drop the amount of tuition it charges or pay the extra $12k or so to keep him (~40k tuition). Or the grad student author can move out of a way over-saturated field and get a real job. We need to remember that there is a huge oversupply of PhD graduate students in most subjects, including history [princeton.edu]. Or he can pay the extra $10k or so out of his salary (which is already $30k).

      His situation isn't most graduate students' situations who have far lower wages and tuition to deal with. I know when I was in grad school at UC Davis last decade, I had a salary of roughly $20k and tuition costs around $12k. Taxes would have been around $2-3k (depending on at what point I hit the 25% tax bracket). It wouldn't have been pleasant, but I could afford the tax payment.

      Personally, I don't see the point of cutting taxes when one isn't cutting entitlement benefits, subsidies, or military spending which make up about three quarters of what the US currently spends.