Government Funding for Students

themole

responce to Ibid: Correct me if i'm wrong, but afaik the two biggest industries in ireland are the it and pharmaceutical industries. Which are all about research.

leninbenjamin

Ibid wrote:

I'm not arsed at the moment sourcing the OECD report that says Ireland is crap at R&D and we should focus instead on implementing others' technology. I'm sure some of you can find it though. Dr. Constantine Gurdgiev argued about it in Business and Finance a couple of years ago.

off hand can you think of a title? a quick glance at the OECD website turned up nothing. it'd be useful for me studies...

Time Magazine

djpbarry wrote:

What exactly are you basing that on if you have no experience of working in research?

Fortunately personal experience would probably only bias my opinion. I'm basing this on facts on the return on investment of R&D spending.

I’m sorry, but that’s just daft. When you undertake a research project, you are entering the unknown to a certain degree – otherwise it wouldn’t be worth doing. You cannot possibly project the potential monetary gain the research will provide, as this would depend on a whole range of factors.

You need to do some research and development on dead ducks. If the overwhelming empirical evidence on R&D returns is mediocre, and you yourself are not sure on the returns to an investment, why should you be proposing the government fund R&D rather than, say, provide adequate capital funding for primary schools?

That is highly debateable.

Then debate it. Give me some evidence where government funding is more effective than private funding. I presume everyone else will take it as true; obviously firms with a direct interest in returns fund things better than departments which are all too oft swayed by popular/regional concerns.

Themole, you're right, pharmachem and IT are some of the largest industries, though not the largest. Construction and the HSE are the largest employers if I'm not mistaken. Many of these jobs are research and development based and pay their way. But firstly they're private sector, not government funded. Secondly, you don't need more than a third level qualification to "develop" a new software package, thus calling it "R&D" is a misnomer. Similarly researching for new drugs takes people with degrees in chemistry rather than doctorates therein. So again the "R&D" thing is a misnomer.

I can't think of the title, leninbenjamin, it's been at least a year since I read the report. Though this BoozeAllenHamilton report is good. The conclusion: R&D ain't the be all and end all. Throwing money at it is all too often a waste.

themole

Ibid wrote:

Give me some evidence where government funding is more effective than private funding.

The internet and all thats associated with it, developed for the us military.

Space exploration and satellites, gps etc assoiated with.
Sometimes there are projects too big for a company to handle mainly as they will benefit everyone and not just the company that would develop them.

Tbh the us military has done a lot for the high tech industry, bit of a mixed blessing :cool:

Ibid wrote:

Themole, you're right, pharmachem and IT are some of the largest industries, though not the largest.

Can't find the figures after a bit of digging. The last time i came across figures though they said that the IT and Pharm were the biggest, maybe not in terms of numbers employed, but in terms of % of GDP.

Some figures i came across put construction at 9% of GDP.

Time Magazine

themole wrote:

The internet and all thats associated with it, developed for the us military.

That a single example of government inventing something. That's not evidence :rolleyes: Get me aggregate figures and we'll talk .

And you need to know the difference between GDP and GNP to analyze the difference between construction and ICT/Pharmachem in this country.

leninbenjamin

cheers for the link Ibid.

Ibid wrote:

And you need to know the difference between GDP and GNP to analyze the difference between construction and ICT/Pharmachem in this country.

on the subject of the above though, can that not be turned around and used as an argument FOR increased government investment in the area? should the government not be investing in the hope that our own researchers would come up with the breakthroughs and products and might possibly go out and establish their own business's or companies, instead of the current situation now where we have a huge over reliance on foreign owned investment?

Time Magazine

No. Just because we need an investment to work doesn't mean it will work.

themole

Ibid wrote:

That a single example of government inventing something. That's not evidence :rolleyes: Get me aggregate figures and we'll talk .

And you need to know the difference between GDP and GNP to analyze the difference between construction and ICT/Pharmachem in this country.

First of all, i gave two examples.

I'm not saying research should be all government or all private. But the case for government supported research in my mind is clear. There are numerous fields which were/are supported by governemnt funding.

Without doing any searching i can come up with, including the two i already gave:
Nuclear power industry, spawned from manhattan project, ups and down to everything and currently the world leaders in nuclear energy are france where the government has funded edf.

Computer industry, developed from work done to break codes during ww2. Most of the early programmable computers were build with government money. The us military still funds a lot of research.

I'm not saying these fields would not exist without government intervention, but as they stand they have benefitted greatly from government funding.

Secondly, i stated that as far as i know IT and pharm ARE the biggest industries in Ireland in terms of money. If i am wrong on this why don't you come up with evidence to refute me?

djpbarry

Ibid, the bottom line is that technology cannot possibly advance without research, be it state-funded or private.

silverharp

themole wrote:

I'm not saying these fields would not exist without government intervention, but as they stand they have benefitted greatly from government funding.

Do you not mean we have benefited from WAR, without WW1 and WW2 commercial flying for instance may have been delayed for 20 or 30 years

themole

silverharp wrote:

Do you not mean we have benefited from WAR, without WW1 and WW2 commercial flying for instance may have been delayed for 20 or 30 years

We have benefited from government investment which was spurred on due to war, yes.

But there are lots of occasions were war was not involved and governments have stepped in to fund projects, take fusion power as an example. The iter projects is funded by a number of governments.

Time Magazine

themole wrote:

First of all, i gave two examples.

I conveniently ignored your space exploration point for your benefit. But now that you mention it. The International Space Station is the great shining light of space exploration of the last decade. It's also managed to cost $130 billion dollars. I don't know if people realize the scale of this figure. I really need to put the scale of this atrocity into context. I've banged on about opportunity cost on this forum before but why not, it's quite possibly the most important humanitarian problem on the planet. The latest UN Human Development Report details the problem of clean running water. Every day, diarrhoea kills just under 5,000 under-5s per day. Infant mortality can be lowered by as much as 60% with a flush-toilet facility (HDR 2006, 42-43). In Ireland, about five kids per thousand die before their fifth birthday. In Sierra Leone, it's 163 (WHO 2006).

Why do I mention this? I'm emphasizing how ridiculous it is to pour so much money into R&D. The ISS cost $130bn dollars. Had they successfully lowered costs by about 8% - the sort of gains the evidence public vs private is suggesting - that would have freed up $10bn. That's more than enough, by a conservative UN estimate, to bring running water to half those who do not have it. So an 8% cost saving measure on the one great white light elephant of space exploration could save 2,500 under-5s every day, from one disease alone. How many lives would it save in total? I dunno, maybe 10,000? How much longer would they live? I only dream to think of that.

The reality of the situation is that technology has not yet reached its capital saturation point. Far from it, there's is already a huge outstanding capital deficit on this planet. R&D, and particularly non-profit motivated R&D is a "black box" where money is put in and hoped something will come out. Furthermore the evidence suggests pouring more into this black box, not surprisingly, doesn't increase the productive outflow. Throwing money at it is not only not going to solve the problem, it causes other problems by withdrawing for our traditional capital fund.

I'm not saying research should be all government or all private. But the case for government supported research in my mind is clear. There are numerous fields which were/are supported by governemnt funding.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing its effectiveness and particularly calls for "government funding for students" in the context of R&D.

Without doing any searching i can come up with, including the two i already gave:
Nuclear power industry, spawned from manhattan project, ups and down to everything and currently the world leaders in nuclear energy are france where the government has funded edf.

Fine, well and good. Now, how much did that cost? Would you consider it a good investment? Let's say it cost €100, wouldn't it have been better if had cost €90 and got the same results?

You cannot evaluate any investment without knowing the underlying cost structure. Not surprisingly, academic research has been undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of government and private R&D. Evidence of thousands of projects were taken and averages analyzed. The results? R&D is not an amazing investment by any means. Another result? Public funding is not as effective as private funding.

Computer industry, developed from work done to break codes during ww2. Most of the early programmable computers were build with government money. The us military still funds a lot of research.

But at what cost?! The evidence overwhelmingly suggests better results would be achieved from private funding.

I'm not saying these fields would not exist without government intervention, but as they stand they have benefitted greatly from government funding.

But at what cost?

Secondly, i stated that as far as i know IT and pharm ARE the biggest industries in Ireland in terms of money. If i am wrong on this why don't you come up with evidence to refute me?

I did refute you; I refuted your entire basis on analysis. "In terms of money" in Ireland is a complete economic non sequitur. Transfer pricing by multinational corporations is widespread for tax avoidance and is not Irish productivity. This is the difference between GNP and GDP I mentioned.

djpbarry wrote:

Ibid, the bottom line is that technology cannot possibly advance without research, be it state-funded or private.

You're right. But that's completely irrelevant. Nowhere did I propose not spending any money on R&D. Everywhere I have suggested that its economic capabilities have been shown to be limited, that belief in R&D is mis-guided as a pro-R&D bubble has expanded, that government funding for R&D is not as effective as private R&D, that Ireland is particularly bad in garnering results from R&D, that there is an outstanding capital deficit that should be addressed prior to seeking the advance of better capital, that "competitiveness" and "innovation" do not require R&D per se and we really should consider the alternatives before potentially wasting our money and particularly scare time. I've been rebutted with costless anecdotes and clichés that ignore my points. Come on lads, have you even read the BAH report I linked to?

themole

What i am saying is that there are many cases where the research might not habe been done at all due to the prohibitive costs which no company is willing to bear.

How do you know the ISS was a waste of money? , or could have been done cheaper? The case is not clear cut. It might bear fruition in decades to come.

I will agree that you know more about the economics than me. But my point is that just looking at the costs does not tell the full story. Its easy to cost a project after it has been done and say, that wasn't worth it. But a harder figure to come up with is what would be the benefit of not doing the project. Maybe it will have been worth it taken on a longer scale.

My point is taken on a grander scale all knowledge is valuable.

Time Magazine

themole wrote:

What i am saying is that there are many cases where the research might not habe been done at all due to the prohibitive costs which no company is willing to bear.

That's fine for the few times the government gets it right, but the evidence is overwhelming that firms do it better. If efficient and profit-motivated firms don't risk it, why should the government touch it with a barge pole?

How do you know the ISS was a waste of money? , or could have been done cheaper? The case is not clear cut. It might bear fruition in decades to come.

How many lives per day do you reckon it will save? By saying "How do you know the ISS was a waste of money?" what you're effectively doing is putting your head in the sand, claiming nobody can conduct a cost-benefit analysis of any project but still saying "Despite our inability to be sure of these investments, and the overwhelming evidence that R&D isn't that great and firms do it better, I think it would be good to pour more money into it."

I will agree that you know more about the economics than me. But my point is that just looking at the costs does not tell the full story. Its easy to cost a project after it has been done and say, that wasn't worth it. But a harder figure to come up with is what would be the benefit of not doing the project. Maybe it will have been worth it taken on a longer scale.

You're politely saying "I'm ignoring all the hitherto evidence" here.

My point is taken on a grander scale all knowledge is valuable.

That's an entirely separate point and one that cannot be used in conjunction with arguments on the grounds of competitiveness.

themole

Ibid wrote:

How many lives per day do you reckon it will save? By saying "How do you know the ISS was a waste of money?" what you're effectively doing is putting your head in the sand, claiming nobody can conduct a cost-benefit analysis of any project but still saying "Despite our inability to be sure of these investments, and the overwhelming evidence that R&D isn't that great and firms do it better, I think it would be good to pour more money into it."

There is money spent on worse things.

Ibid wrote:

You're politely saying "I'm ignoring all the hitherto evidence" here.

I'm saying that its hard to quantify. Its easier to calculate the cost of developing a tech than it is to calculate the benefit and that looking at the cost you can calculate vs the benefit you can calculate will leave a lot out of the benefit side.

silverharp

Ibid wrote:

Why do I mention this? I'm emphasizing how ridiculous it is to pour so much money into R&D. The ISS cost $130bn dollars. Had they successfully lowered costs by about 8% - the sort of gains the evidence public vs private is suggesting - that would have freed up $10bn. That's more than enough, by a conservative UN estimate, to bring running water to half those who do not have it. So an 8% cost saving measure on the one great white light elephant of space exploration could save 2,500 under-5s every day, from one disease alone. How many lives would it save in total? I dunno, maybe 10,000? How much longer would they live? I only dream to think of that.

Opportunity cost is a great concept for a single country but on a global basis I am not sure how useful/workable it is. Apart frim the general concept of "the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few" it is too simplistic to talk about the cost of clean water in the 3rd world as measured against some gold plated R&D project which if politically driven may or may not be useful. In your example somehow sorting out clean water in the third world tomorrow in isolation could create all kinds of problems if demographics suddenly changed.

Time Magazine

themole wrote:

There is money spent on worse things.

That doesn't mean R&D is money well spent.

I'm saying that its hard to quantify. Its easier to calculate the cost of developing a tech than it is to calculate the benefit

You're wrong. It's impossible to calculate the cost of developing a technology. R&D is half a matter of chance, it's money in a black box and you hope you get something out. All analysis of previous R&D budgets suggest not a whole lot comes out of these boxes. Why aren't people accepting this point?

and that looking at the cost you can calculate vs the benefit you can calculate will leave a lot out of the benefit side.

You should read up on Cost-Benefit Analysis.

silverharp wrote:

Opportunity cost is a great concept for a single country but on a global basis I am not sure how useful/workable it is.

Why? It's a single planet.

Apart frim the general concept of "the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few" it is too simplistic to talk about the cost of clean water in the 3rd world as measured against some gold plated R&D project which if politically driven may or may not be useful.

I was using the water example to give people some idea of the waste of money R&D has already been. I wasn't advocating cutting ISS spending by 8%. I was saying future ISS "gold plated" R&D spending should be seriously considered before being advocated or undertaken. $130bn divided by 290m Americans is about $450 each. If I was American I'd rather a new 80gig iPod video and a $100 change than the ISS thanks very much. Sure, if the ISS was one hundredth of the cost, or if R&D had an r^2 to sales of more than 0.01 it'd be great. But the evidence is overwhelming that the huge case for R&D that is conventionally propagated just doesn't exist. Sure, some R&D is needed. And is improved investment in students. But this notion that pouring money into R&D will make the world a much greater place is made all the more ironic by the fact that it is espoused by people who are more often that not engaged in acadaemia.

In your example somehow sorting out clean water in the third world tomorrow in isolation could create all kinds of problems if demographics suddenly changed.

Even if that horribly cold-hearted hyper-Malthusian view ("let's not save the babies in case demographics changed :rolleyes:") were true, there are proven methods of improving output to a greater extent than mass R&D. The main one is called capital deepening.

djpbarry

Ibid wrote:

Nowhere did I propose not spending any money on R&D. Everywhere I have suggested that its economic capabilities have been shown to be limited, that belief in R&D is mis-guided as a pro-R&D bubble has expanded, that government funding for R&D is not as effective as private R&D, that Ireland is particularly bad in garnering results from R&D, that there is an outstanding capital deficit that should be addressed prior to seeking the advance of better capital, that "competitiveness" and "innovation" do not require R&D per se and we really should consider the alternatives before potentially wasting our money and particularly scare time.

Can we agree that sometimes, research IS a necessity? For example, there comes a point when a car, computer, processor or whatever, becomes obsolete and no amount of marketing know-how is going to sell you more units. Now, you appear to be making a case for private R&D, which is what I was getting at – there is virtually no private research in this country. BUT, it is still necessary for an individual to obtain a research degree before they can pursue a career in this area, which is where government funding comes in. Now, while it is sometimes possible to obtain a PhD or MPhil in industry, it is not possible to do this in Ireland due to the aforementioned lack of private research.

On the issue of Ireland being "particularly bad in garnering results from R&D", I must ask what you are basing that statement on?

One area in particular where Ireland has the potential to become a world-leader is in the development of renewable/alternative energy sources. Now, this IS a necessity, as fossil fuels will only be around for so long and hence requires (probably large amounts of) funding.

Another pertinent example is the pharma industry, which is almost exclusively privately funded. The development of a new drug can cost anything up to $2 billion, but it is necessary. It should also be pointed out that this is an area where government funding is badly needed. Why? Well because, for example, there is not a single pharma company anywhere in the world that is developing a malaria vaccine, as it would not be in their interest to do so. Just an example of where private R&D doesn’t necessarily work.

I should point out that I do agree with Ibid on the issue of space exploration, at least in principle. It is incredible how much money gets poured into these programs, but then the same could be said for the military, or the pharma industry, who are more interested in finding treatments for obesity than treatments for AIDS, malaria or TB.

Finally Ibid, I agree with themole, not everything can be measured in monetary terms. I find this to be a major flaw among economists such as David McWilliams and Philippe Legrain.

Time Magazine

djpbarry wrote:

Can we agree that sometimes, research IS a necessity?

Did you read my post in its entirety? Answer that honestly please.

For example, there comes a point when a car, computer, processor or whatever, becomes obsolete and no amount of marketing know-how is going to sell you more units.

You're still thinking in a two-dimensional framework. Try to stop thinking about it from a competitive firm's opinion and see it as a societal view. Then you stop focusing on selling more units and focus on increasing social utility.

Now, you appear to be making a case for private R&D, which is what I was getting at – there is virtually no private research in this country.

Because we're crap at it. And if we're crap at it we shouldn't even try, regardless of the fact that everyone else is mediocre at it. We don't need private research in this country if we're crap at it. Spending more money on private research if we're crap at it will mean we'll produce a lot of crap. Crap is not good. It's crap. Law of Comparative Advantage.

BUT, it is still necessary for an individual to obtain a research degree before they can pursue a career in this area, which is where government funding comes in. Now, while it is sometimes possible to obtain a PhD or MPhil in industry, it is not possible to do this in Ireland due to the aforementioned lack of private research.

You're wrong on both counts. You do not need a research degree to pursue a career in research. That's just not true. There are plenty of people researching with bachelors and taught masters. So government funding is not as essential as you say.

Secondly who says the government should fund fourth level? You're the one looking at this from the competitive strategy dimension; why shouldn't people cough up funds themselves to earn these high-paying jobs because they're selling so many new processors? Why should the government intervene? Or if firms need these super-talented PhD students, why don't they fund the research themselves and get people to sign preemptive contracts?

On the issue of Ireland being "particularly bad in garnering results from R&D", I must ask what you are basing that statement on?

A report from the OECD that said as much.

One area in particular where Ireland has the potential to become a world-leader is in the development of renewable/alternative energy sources.

What are you basing that on? Why are you assuming that we're not better than the Norwegians, or the Spanish or the Angolans at this?

Now, this IS a necessity, as fossil fuels will only be around for so long and hence requires (probably large amounts of) funding.

No it doesn't. We're willing to pay $80 for a barrel of oil plus the huge excise our government pays on it. As a race we spend a lot of money on energy. Oil companies make billions and billions of dollars every year. People buy that oil. Not because we like oil itself, but we like its ability to make things move. In fact I'd say people are averse to oil because of its carbon residual. If a firm X manages to make extremely efficient solar power, I'd rather use that resource than buying off the oil-dependent ESB. And then firm X can make the billions and billions of dollars every year. So why aren't they pouring the money into R&D? Why aren't Google and Goldman Sachs funding in such a great opportunity?

Why should the government think it's best at funding?

Another pertinent example is the pharma industry, which is almost exclusively privately funded. The development of a new drug can cost anything up to $2 billion, but it is necessary. It should also be pointed out that this is an area where government funding is badly needed. Why? Well because, for example, there is not a single pharma company anywhere in the world that is developing a malaria vaccine, as it would not be in their interest to do so. Just an example of where private R&D doesn’t necessarily work.

I've a far better solution than government funding research into drugs. Governments promise to buy drugs if they're produced. Wahey, hey presto, you have your incentive. And I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but such a promise has already been made by an inter-governmental body for a vaccine against/cure for AIDS. Ireland has already committed several million to the project. What's wrong with this? What would make research all that much more effective if the government got involved?

I should point out that I do agree with Ibid on the issue of space exploration, at least in principle. It is incredible how much money gets poured into these programs, but then the same could be said for the military, or the pharma industry, who are more interested in finding treatments for obesity than treatments for AIDS, malaria or TB.

You seem to not be familiar with the millions Ireland has already set aside for an AIDS cure.

Finally Ibid, I agree with themole, not everything can be measured in monetary terms.

That's nice to know. No offense, but what's your point? I don't rate the enjoyment I get from spending time with my girlfriend in monetary terms, but I do measure how much we're giving to universities "for the competitive edge" in monetary terms. Funding for research into arts and sciences for arts and sciences' sake is different to R&D. The latter is not primarily concerned with the dissemination of knowledge. The distinction is hard to define, but it is analogous to the difference between a drug company researcher and a chemistry professor. Both have their uses. They're not the same and they should be treated the same, nor argued for in the same breath.

economists such as David McWilliams

Lol.

I find this to be a major flaw among economists such as David McWilliams and Philippe Legrain.

You don't understand the "economics" these guys espouse because it's not real economics. You're making the faux pas of calling Joe Duffy a sociologist. They're journalists with degrees in economics.

silverharp

Ibid wrote:

.

Why? It's a single planet.

There is no mechanism or motivation to come around to this way of thinking. And even if there was it wouldn’t work, the world bank and such institutions are so corrupt that they have done nothing but impoverish third world countries.

Ibid wrote:

I was using the water example to give people some idea of the waste of money R&D has already been

An interesting point of view I came across is from Richard Heinberg where he says that we are past Peak innovation. Basically if you were to graph development with R&D money the peak would have been in the 19th Century, I don’t know enough to agree or disagree with the argument but it has some merit.

Ibid wrote:

You don't understand the "economics" these guys espouse because it's not real economics. You're making the faux pas of calling Joe Duffy a sociologist. They're journalists with degrees in economics.

That’s not a fair comment in McWilliams case, he worked for the Irish central bank I believe. Given that economics is not a hard science most economists tend to be just mouthpieces for the institutions they work for.

Time Magazine

silverharp wrote:

There is no mechanism or motivation to come around to this way of thinking. And even if there was it wouldn’t work, the world bank and such institutions are so corrupt that they have done nothing but impoverish third world countries.

The corruption (or the lack thereof) of the World Bank has absolutely nothing to do with the applicability of opportunity cost analysis.

An interesting point of view I came across is from Richard Heinberg where he says that we are past Peak innovation. Basically if you were to graph development with R&D money the peak would have been in the 19th Century, I don’t know enough to agree or disagree with the argument but it has some merit.

Almost definitely the technological development of the 20th century was greater than the 19th. I don't know if it 21st century technological advances will be as great as the 20th and this is, regardless, not on-topic.

That’s not a fair comment in McWilliams case, he worked for the Irish central bank I believe. Given that economics is not a hard science most economists tend to be just mouthpieces for the institutions they work for.

That's incorrect about economists. A professor of mine was a high-ranking economist with the World Bank (he wrote a book with Joe Stiglitz back in the day). His opinion I value a lot more than yours or Naomi Klein's. Suffice to say I don't think the World Bank is this great corrupt organisation people think it is. Oh and David did the same degree as me (he's quoted as being "very eccentric" by a few people ), worked a while in the CB then went into banking. Just like an economist who becomes the keyboardist for The Thrills can hardly be called an economist any more, McWilliams is a journalist.

Regardless, this is off-topic nonsense.

djpbarry

Ibid wrote:

Try to stop thinking about it from a competitive firm's opinion and see it as a societal view.

I am – that was just an example. Technical advancement is required by society as much as it is by competitive firms.

bid wrote:

We don't need private research in this country if we're crap at it.

On the one hand you’re saying we’re crap at R&D in this country (which I strongly disagree with) and we’re "particularly bad in garnering results from R&D". Yet you claim that "we can innovate without creating the R&D. We implement others' R&D." That would appear to be a contradiction in terms.

Ibid wrote:

There are plenty of people researching with bachelors and taught masters

"Plenty" is an over-statement.

Ibid wrote:

Secondly who says the government should fund fourth level? You're the one looking at this from the competitive strategy dimension; why shouldn't people cough up funds themselves to earn these high-paying jobs because they're selling so many new processors? Why should the government intervene? Or if firms need these super-talented PhD students, why don't they fund the research themselves and get people to sign preemptive contracts?

That is exactly the problem. This does happen in say the US for example. But, the problem is that the firms in question do not have R&D centres in Ireland (at least not very large ones). They generally have purely manufacturing bases that have little need for people with higher degrees. So, the option of doing a research degree in industry is not readily available in this country.

Ibid wrote:

What are you basing that on? Why are you assuming that we're not better than the Norwegians, or the Spanish or the Angolans at this?

Because we are an island nation by the Atlantic (lots of wind and waves) with a highly-skilled workforce (even more so due to recent immigration).

Ibid wrote:

In fact I'd say people are averse to oil because of its carbon residual. If a firm X manages to make extremely efficient solar power, I'd rather use that resource than buying off the oil-dependent ESB. And then firm X can make the billions and billions of dollars every year. So why aren't they pouring the money into R&D? Why aren't Google and Goldman Sachs funding in such a great opportunity?
Why should the government think it's best at funding?

Of course you would rather use the solar panel – as would I. But realistically no-one is going to be making "billions and billions" from solar panels any time soon because society is not willing to do without oil just yet and oil company’s are not prepared to stop selling it and divert the resources elsewhere. It should also be pointed out that domestic solar technology already exists but not many people seem prepared to avail of it. And in fairness to Google, they are investing money in this area, but not nearly enough.
I don’t think the government does think "it’s best at funding", but it has to address the shortfall.

Ibid wrote:

That's nice to know. No offense, but what's your point?

None taken . My point is that often, the goal of research, particularly in biological fields, is the pursuit of knowledge that will benefit society, rather than monetary gain. For example, the HSE is planning on introducing free cervical screening to all women in Ireland aged 25-60 years. This program is being introduced based largely on the recommendations of state-funded researchers in Trinity, St James’ Hospital and DIT. The state has little to gain financially from offering this service, but it is of huge importance to our society.

Ibid wrote:

You don't understand the "economics" these guys espouse because it's not real economics. You're making the faux pas of calling Joe Duffy a sociologist. They're journalists with degrees in economics.

In fairness, Philippe Legrain was special adviser to WTO director-general Mike Moore. He also spent three years at Britain in Europe as chief economist and then director of policy.

SimpleSam06

Gah this is just painful.

Ibid wrote:

Because we're crap at it. And if we're crap at it we shouldn't even try, regardless of the fact that everyone else is mediocre at it. We don't need private research in this country if we're crap at it.

What on earth are you talking about here? Irish people have been responsible for a great deal of innovation, in semi recent years, including discovering a treatment for leprosy, high speed photography, modern electrocardiogram (ECG), the discovery of pulsars, nickel-zinc batteries, in theoretical physics the 'Fitzgerald-Lorenz Contraction', the aircraft ejector seat, the mobile defibrilator, boolean algebra, and the hypodermic needle, among many others. Kindly restrain your further comments about the innovative ability of the Irish people to the facts, like a good man.

Ibid wrote:

So government funding is not as essential as you say.

Government funding is essential because no private company would risk spending large amounts of its capital on something with potentially no return. And as for your examples of Nike and Coke, how much research can you do into a pair of shoes or a soft drink? Talk to me about Intel instead.

As for your comments regarding the space program, you are talking about a technology largely funded by two superpowers, Russia and the US, in an environment of national competitiveness, during the cold war. The perspective I would put on this is, at the time, people dying of thirst in third world countries were not their responsibility, never mind that most of their problems were caused by their own leaders in the first place. You can't feed the world because the world's dictators will take your food for their own soldiers.

From a commerial point of view, sales and marketing investment will of course produce far better results than R&D, in terms of profit. However if you don't invest in R&D, sooner or later you end up with nothing to sell.

Ibid wrote:

Why should the government think it's best at funding?

In certain situations, it is.

Time Magazine

Just so ye know, I'm not avoiding this thread; my ratio of too busy to not arsed is too high at the moment.

djpbarry

:rolleyes: