Replies to post #137427 on Biotech Values

[oldberkeley]

My apologies, always enjoy your posts.

[acgood]

gov't is the preferred provider of scientific research and funding for research. That's obviously not true in pharmaceutical development

I think you're off base on this count. Maybe Dew has some sort of statistic, but the percentage of approved medicines for which federally funded academic or nonprofit collaborators contributed to the development has got to be pretty decent.

[vinmantoo]

Oakes,

I have a very good sense of humor, it just doesn't kick in when someone says something that isn't funny like your previous post.

I did find your last post quite amusing, so thanks for making me laugh.

""I've worked with a lot materials scientists and even those in academia were heavily supported by industry. My employer is a large financial supporter of materials science research at MIT amongst other universities. ""


Just where do you think that the funding to build and operate MIT comes from Jack? Just where do you think the money to train grad-students, post-docs and professors comes from Jack? Industry may pay a part of funding some research, but you tremendously underestimate the role of government funding in that process, not to mention ignoring more basic research.

[poorgradstudent]

OT:

Some folks seem to have an automatic response that gov't is the preferred provider of scientific research and funding for research. That's obviously not true in pharmaceutical development so why should it be in materials science?

I think this depends on what your view is towards the role of biomedical research in society.

We can't turn biomedical research towards a pharmaceutical funding model without fundamentally (h/t Newt) changing its role in society.