am I a hypocrite?

[Fox McCloud]

"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair

I can understand your plight...but you have to think "could I get a private job that would allow me to do something similar?" If you could, then I wouldn't think it would be a particularly big issue...but if it is an issue, I could understand your dilemma. It's like getting an IRS agent to support Ron Paul...they'd quake in horror for fear they'd lose their jobs.

I dunno, I'm no expert, but if Ron Paul was elected (or even not) you could just look for a job in the private sector.

 

[Mini-Me]

Even if we came to a consensus that publicly funded academic research is necessary, it's still not the responsibility or right of the federal government to tax for, direct, and conduct research - it's the responsibility of the states (and state universities). I imagine an argument might be, "But then only certain states will choose to use public funds to pay for research that could benefit all of us, and others will be freeloaders!" Well, perhaps - but if those "freeloading" states don't have prestigious research universities that in-state students can attend, they'll lose constituents to the states that do! Competition is a good thing.

 

[BigRedBrent]

No one can be more of a hypocrite then me. I get food stamps and my children get medicare. Sometimes you must fight for what is right even if it will hurt you the most.

 

[Mini-Me]

No one can be more of a hypocrite then me. I get food stamps and my children get medicare. Sometimes you must fight for what is right even if it will hurt you the most.

As many have said - not a hypocrite, but a patriot! From my understanding though, in the long run, a real free market (not this corporatist-fascist system we have) with honest money should ultimately help people like you more than anyone...

 

[Kaneda]

On the public vs. private research:

I asked myself the same questions.

Consider this:

Germanys college/universities are all public sector financed and lag waaaaaay behind in international comparisions.

The university i'm in is considered one of the best in Germany, and it's main politics are: get as much contact to the private sector as possible. Guess why

As far as i know, many big companies throughout history had big research departments for fundamental research. I think, the reason that this is declining, is that private companies can delegate research to the public researchers, thus saving money (exactly this is happening with me right now, working with a project leader, who is in contact with Siemens)

Look at the best colleges in the western world (MIT, Oxford..). Are they public or private? How are they funded? As far as i know, it's private and private.

The professors at my university have no substantial interest in good customer support (the customers being the students). They do not depend on them, paying the bills. Professors here are distant, don't have much time for their students (not all of course), we have lectures with 200-500 people, which is not in favor of discussion, and i consider the learning material as very poor (except if you buy the books the professors sell of course)

There are research projects that are funded by a group of companies, when the burden is too high for one alone to shoulder.

Ever tried to sack a teacher in a public school or college?

As far as i know, most of the fundamental research leading to the outburst of science at the beginning of the 20th century was done by private universities and research groups. Often, fundamental research is done by private people not affiliated with any research department (Einstein for example)

And a big question is: how do you measure, what research should be done, and how much money you should put in it? How much taxes have to be raised? There is only one answer to this question. Let the people with money decide which projects seem the most lucrative. When people pay for a product, this means that it raises their standard of living more than still having the money. Private people often do long term investments, like 20 or more years, if they think it is worth it.

As far as i know, it's always the big industry which pushes the state to fund certain research projects. If they hadn't the state to research for them by taxing them and the people, wouldn't they have more money and more investors to do the research themselves?

 

[Luis]

A market of free individuals

As many have said - not a hypocrite, but a patriot! From my understanding though, in the long run, a real free market (not this corporatist-fascist system we have) with honest money should ultimately help people like you more than anyone...

A market of free individuals, regulated corporations and a democratically-controlled republican government.

 

[weslinder]

When I began supporting Ron Paul and the Liberty movement, I worked for an oil company that was wholly owned by the government of a Socialist country. I have since left that company, but I fully understand your conflict. It's okay. Hopefully this Liberty movement will take hold so some really great opportunities for medical research will open up.

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[CUnknown]

Mini-me wrote:

Even if we came to a consensus that publicly funded academic research is necessary, it's still not the responsibility or right of the federal government to tax for, direct, and conduct research - it's the responsibility of the states (and state universities).

This kind of system might work, and if Ron Paul were elected, he might try to do something like this. But, we should stress that the national research institutions -- the NIH, NSF, etc. would not (and should not) disappear, even under this system. They'd just have to beg for funding from the individual states. And I'm sure they would get it. So, less federal money would be spent, but your state income taxes would go up. If this seems better -- yeah.. more local control, sure sounds good -- then I am okay with it.

But, the individual states shouldn't so much decide what is researched, only how much they are willing to contribute to the national effort. Having 50 little NIHs, one in each state, seems ridiculous and inefficient. I don't know if that is what you were suggesting or not.

Kaneda said:

Look at the best colleges in the western world (MIT, Oxford..). Are they public or private? How are they funded? As far as i know, it's private and private.

Yes, the best colleges are private institutions. And I agree that private colleges are better for education, much better. But they get most of their grant money for research from the NIH, NSF, the Army, etc., just like the public institutions do.

As far as i know, most of the fundamental research leading to the outburst of science at the beginning of the 20th century was done by private universities and research groups. Often, fundamental research is done by private people not affiliated with any research department (Einstein for example)

Unfortunately, the era of the lone rich guy doing crazy experiments in his attic is over. It's too expensive now, and too complicated -- it really requires a team. A large majority of the advances in the 20th century have been publicly funded.

As far as i know, it's always the big industry which pushes the state to fund certain research projects. If they hadn't the state to research for them by taxing them and the people, wouldn't they have more money and more investors to do the research themselves?

Well.. yes, they would have more money in that case. But, you might get a situation where multiple companies work independently (and both pay the money) to research the same thing. Of course, that happens in our current system a lot, too. But at least in the current system, when one research group finishes the project, they publish and let the other groups know they should work on something else.

There is a big problem with private research that we haven't talked about yet, and that's the issue of secrecy. Often, a large company that discovers something won't publish or let anyone know, because they don't want their competitors to use the knowledge. Scientific progress would be really held back by that. Anything that is discovered on the public's dime is published and made known to all, so that other groups can confirm and expand on the ideas. Openness is very important to science.