ot research funding
this little debate started off w/ my comment on a response i hear frequently which can be approximated as "why isn't the gov't funding more research on topic x"? The point was that if topic x has direct linkages to making money, then gov't should not be the primary funder for research in that field. That is not an attack on university research programs nor did i frivolously insert the word primary. Companies will and do fund research in order to make money. Aspects of that research are frequently no less 'basic' or 'fundamental' than much of the research done in universities and national labs and it is no less socially beneficial. I've reviewed dozens of university research proposals and nearly all of them claim some link to practical economically related applications. That doesn't make those proposals non-basic, non-fundamental, or disqualify them from federal funding. However, as a taxpayer, why would you volunteer to fund that research if private companies were willing. Of course, given the opportunity to be leaches, corporations will take advantage. Bell Labs is no more. read into that what you will.
I did not make any statements along the lines of gov't should not fund scientific research. I did not say "clinical development has nothing to do with science". I did not say anything about political parties.
Thank you for pointing out that MIT's royalty stream on patents is >10%/yr. I think anybody on this board would be exceedingly happy with that rate of return (it's actually much greater than 10% but the $25M disappeared in your representation). It is a useful document.
i am done with this topic so nobody should be feel compelled to call for a stop on my part.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
