Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Calls On the US Government To Invest More In Research and Development (fortune.com)
An anonymous reader cites an article on Fortune: On Monday, Bill Gates attempted a commendable feat: to get politicians to focus on something other than the current election cycle and its partisan bickering. In an op-ed published by Reuters, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft called on the United States to spur technological innovation by increasing its investment in research and development. "Government funding for our world-class research institutions produces the new technologies that American entrepreneurs take to market," he wrote. But while other nations like South Korea and China have drastically upped their R and D spending, the United States' has "essentially flatlined." He said that the rest of the world's commitment to research and development is great, "but if the United States is going to maintain its leading role, it needs to up its game." His call for more government-sponsored R&D also comes as corporations pull back on their commitment to discovery and innovation. With more government investment, he said, U.S. scientists could completely eradicate polio and further decrease the number of deaths from malaria. More funding could also "develop the technologies that will power the world -- while also fighting climate change, promoting energy independence, and providing affordable energy for the 1.3 billion poor people who don't have it today."
Always easier to spend other people's money than it is to spend your own, eh Billy?
Government spending is easy. Making sure it doesn't result in people lining their pockets with the money without producing tangible results is hard.
Why don't the entrepreneurs invest in the R&D that they're going to take to market? Why should we socialize the cost of R&D and then privatize the profits that come from it?
>> Government funding for our world-class research institutions produces the new technologies that American entrepreneurs take to market
You pay the taxes
Public schools research the tech
Big business profits
Given its track record, I have little faith that the government would use taxpayer funds to get promising ideas developed by people who would otherwise not have the resources to do it on their own. More than likely, this would be just another avenue to funnel tons of cash to the friends and donors of those in power (on both sides of the aisle).
The government might have the money to increase R&D funding if companies like Microsoft hadn't used creative accounting to almost totally avoid paying taxes. Perhaps Bill should have thought about that sooner.
Gee, I wonder why they do that?
Corporations used to have R&D centers. In fact, I work down the street from a rather famous one in Palo Alto that the corporate owners had no clue what to do with. But the bean counters from Wall Street ruled that R&D was an expense that added nothing to the bottom line. God forbid if you reduce today's profits for a future cow cash that might revolutionize the industry and make even more money.
Corporations used to have R&D centers
Some still do. Microsoft for example has a very well regarded pure resarch division.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Microsoft for example has a very well regarded pure resarch division.
Microsoft closed the R&D center they had in Silicon Valley. I had a job interview at their campus several years. It was dead, dead, dead. Walk a couple of blocks away, all the Googlers were dancing in the street, chasing after unicorns and looking for lunch.
Bill Gates attempted a commendable feat: to get politicians to focus on something other than the current election cycle and its partisan bickering.
I didn't know his middle name was Sisyphus...
Getting politicians to care about anything other than getting power and bashing the opposition these days is nigh impossible.
More funding could also "develop the technologies that will power the world -- while also fighting climate change, promoting energy independence, and providing affordable energy for the 1.3 billion poor people who don't have it today."
The party which currently controls Congress cares about none of those things. They plainly dispute even the existence of climate change, they aren't concerned about energy independence because that would hurt their oil and coal buddies and they certainly don't care about providing energy for poor people, especially ones that aren't American citizens.
Bill Gates for KING!!!
I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
It's been down since the Great R but we're at $140B for FY2016, how much more should we spend there billy? Under Dubya it was up to was about $20B more.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Why do you think the government needs to fix this by spending taxpayer dollars on R&D?
Where in my comment did I advocate this position? I pointed out that the corporations used to have R&D centers, but the bean counters came and the Wall Street short term mentality became the norm.
LMOL yeah I guess you forgot about the government bail out of wall street. Jack ass.
its because they are risk averse, and (especially with today's short sighted next quarter mentality) if they can't see an immediate profit, they don't care.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Well, it's a rich guy wanting something, so Reps might listen.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Are you high? Only expenses get socialized, profits get privatized. Where have you been those past years?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How dare anyone expect the wealthy to pay towards the developed world societies they benefit hugely from! Damn commies!
Well, it's a rich guy wanting something, so Reps might listen.
That's exactly the reason they shouldn't listen.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
First you need the science educated people, so lets get the science back in science class and the creationism (ID = Creationism) back in church.
Why? Rich guys have the money and make campaign donations, who else should they listen to?
Which makes me wonder... think we could get a Kickstarter campaign rolling? Maybe we can buy us our very own senator if we all pitch in?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That battle is already lost.
Better to put your money into something you can control and make a difference in, like cheap/free Internet for the world (although the cheap electricity thing would have to come first, obviously).
"coincidentally", nearly half of research grants in this country come out of the defense budget.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Regular companies have slashed their R&D or eliminated it completely. Bell Labs barely exists anymore, HP, IBM and Microsoft's Research arms are so product focused that very little long-term groundbreaking science comes out of there these days. Product manufacturing being shifted overseas means the engineering around manufacturing and product development is slowly shifting closer to the factories. Add in the fact that science in the academic world is a notoriously unstable, low-paying area to be in, and it's no wonder that basic research gets underfunded. It's not the same in other countries -- foreign students come back from their education here and are treated quite well compared to students here.
The problem is that to continue innovating, you need that R&D pipeline. The public market and the MBA crowd prohibit investment in anything further than 2 quarters out, so something has to come in and pick up the slack. The golden age of for-profit companies paying for R&D is over unless some major shift happens. Not that I want to go back to the Cold War era, but look how much money got poured into the Space Race and defense programs. When the limitations of budgets, etc. were removed, progress was made quickly. The goal was to beat the Russians to the Moon, or to protect the country from a nuclear attack at all costs, and the work got done.
tl;dr: Yes, throwing money at this particular problem will work, and it has in the past. It just takes the will to do it.
"His call for more government-sponsored R&D also comes as corporations pull back on their commitment to discovery and innovation. With more government investment, he said, U.S. scientists could completely eradicate polio and further decrease the number of deaths from malaria." Just how many deaths from polio and malaria happened in the U.S. last year? We have already done that. Oh, you mean for other countries. Gotcha. I tell you what Bill. Go tell the leaders in those countries to stop stealing the money we already gave to them for that to line their own pockets. At last count America is about what, um, $19 trillion in debt. Take care of your own first. Poverty, crime, failing bridges, lead in drinking water pipes,,,,,,,,,, Govt. R&D???
And exactly the reason they will.
Apple spent years circling the drain because the bean counters had taken over. It wasn't until they got desperate enough to bring Steve Jobs back. Steve wasn't afraid to to R&D.
Google may be a powerhouse, but it's definitely not afraid to fail, and fail frequently. Bean counters hate that.
As for Samsung, I missed the memo. I can't recall offhand anything they're doing that other companies aren't doing too. But if they aren't doing something, don't expect them to remain at the top.
No, the government doesn't need to spend taxpayer dollars on R&D, but the current business mindset is one where bean-counters outnumber the innovators, where buying and selling companies rather than products is a major business.
So maybe one day the Invisible Hand of the Market will fix all this, but I'm not going to hold my breath, and I'd rather not wait for innovation from beanville. I'd die of old age first.
You can quack anti-government cant all you want, but at least the bean-counters don't own it.
That $6 trillion we pissed away in Iraq and the Afghanistan would have come in handy right about now.
Not only do we need research in areas likely to be useful we also need the exotic research that has no apparent reason to take place. Those exotic studies somehow tend to yield the best fruit.
Bill Gates is no doubt an intelligent and educated man, he is also no doubt acting in his own self interests. From where he sits he stands to benefit from more government spending on research since that is then research he does not have to fund himself but is also in a position to turn into products quickly. The internet is something that Gates did not see coming, and from what I recall from history he was either late to realize the impact it would have or perhaps even was dragged kicking and screaming into the internet age since the internet is something he could not control.
It is rare to see government funding result in something beneficial to mankind. Frankly it is rare to see any research result in anything beneficial. However there is a big difference between private and public funding. Private funding means someone with an idea has to convince someone that has amassed their wealth from smart business decisions, hard work, and perhaps a bit of luck, to hand over some money to make it happen, with the hope that it makes them wealthier. Public funding means convincing a US senator that won a popularity/beauty contest to get into office to hand over money they did not earn in the hope of not getting a product that can make a return on that investment but to buy enough votes to stay in office so that they can spend more money that they did not earn to buy more votes six years later.
In my mind people turn to government funds as a means of last resort. It tells me that these people were unable to make a business case to any one of thousands or millions of people with the money to fund their research. It tells me that these people either have a slim to none chance of success or are terrible at public relations, in either case they are unlikely to make a product that can sell.
What might benefit Gates and the nation more than more federal research funds is more freedom for people to invest as they wish. This can take the form of lowered taxes so that people have more money to invest in new business ventures and technologies. This can take the form of loosening restrictions on research.
I hear horror stories of people with terrible illnesses that want to take some experimental drugs but the FDA will not approve them. This lack of approval may be because of insufficient data on its effectiveness, known side effects, or whatever. I'd think that if the patient is given proper notification of the risks, and a physician approves, then the FDA need not be involved.
When it comes to energy research Gates should realized the roadblocks the government has put in place. Gates is a fan of nuclear power and if we want to see more research then we don't need government money, what we need is government permission. There's lots of money out there that people would like to invest in nuclear power but the government has so far forbidden much of it. People are willing to invest because nuclear power has the potential to make them much more in return.
Greed is not bad, it is a survival tactic. We can use greed to make the world a better place, because people like new stuff, a more comfortable life, etc. and are willing to spend money on it.
I know people will reply with the mention of nuclear power and greed by claiming we'd get nuclear power plants that will run for ten years and then explode, because that is what greedy people will do. I say, fuck off. No one is so greedy that they'd put their own profits at risk like that, especially if it's their neighborhood that could get irradiated in this failed nuclear power plant experiment. No one makes money doing that, except perhaps when the government is funding it. Take the government money out of it and it's the investors' money on the line, that will give us safe nuclear power. Remember that all the nuclear power plant disasters we've had were from power plants that passed government inspections. The worst of all, Chernobyl, was a government project from beginning to explosive end.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
a rather famous one in Palo Alto that the corporate owners had no clue what to do with.
Ah yes, that place. Where some people developed a computer that sat on a desk. It had this doohickey called a mouse. But don't let Steve Jobs and his cohorts in or they will steal all the secrets of this desktop computer design.
mfwright@batnet.com
Which makes me wonder... think we could get a Kickstarter campaign rolling? Maybe we can buy us our very own senator if we all pitch in?
Buying Congressfolk is old hat. Today they are leased.
(Yes, it works pretty much like that. You contribute regularly to their "leadership PAC" which is a slush fund from which they will eventually pocket all of the money. And you tell them from time to time how you would like them to vote. They know that if they ignore these "suggestions" the money will get cut off. No illegal pay for a vote at all, no sirree!)
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Since 1999 the US government has paid more for basic research to universities than the combined private and public investment in early stage commercialization (government research grants vs angel investing + venture capital + SBIR). We've built our R&D system such that it costs more to commercialize a good idea than it does to do the basic research. Basic research costs are kept low by subsidies from the researchers who accept degrees, PhDs, postdoctoral fellowships, and tenure in lieu of money.
So, now we have an overabundance of basic research ideas and projects, and a shortage of commercialization opportunities and industry funding.
How does that lead to the government needing to spend more? The government is spending enough.
1) Let's go back to requiring DoD contractors spend 15% of their overhead funding on internal R&D.
2) Let's require SBIR recipients to work on their funded projects full time.
3) Let's require that "diversified investments" advertised to the general public include 0.5% of total funds invested in companies less than 5 years old.
The money is out there, and the researchers are out there. The government doesn't need to pay for everything, nor the scientific community accept the expansive view of "basic" research to include everything up to sales (and in some cases, past that). There needs to be a nudge in the right direction though.
It's not like we've been through an unusually long recession or anything else that might lead Congress to tighten the strings on discretionary spending.
The Gates Foundation favors research teams over others stifling the necessary discourse. Also, so far none of the projects sponsored by the Gates Foundation had any lasting impact for the greater good. Plus...although he is no longer directly involved...Microsoft is one of the biggest roadblocks to open access to tech.
Yes, but a responsible Congress with folks who have a clue increase R&D and infrastructure spending during a regression. Not only does that keep folks employed, it also lays the groundwork once the economy picks back up again. And that is when Congress needs to step in and grab some of that cash so that it compensates for previous expenses rather than make very few people very rich. But with that many utterly clueless tea baggers in Congress we can all forget about common sense.
In a recession people don't need to be given jobs in research or highway construction. That doesn't solve anything - it's two too small sectors of the economy with restrictions on who can provide the labor (one has high qualification requirements, the other has skill and physical requirements). People need to keep the jobs they have. There isn't time to retrain IT workers as road workers or put retail salespeople through grad school.
Besides, using infrastructure projects to boost an economy has been tried elsewhere. The usual outcome is wide stretches of pristine highways and beautiful new facilities, all unused because the labor force is tied up building the highways instead of engaging in the commerce the infrastructure is meant to facilitate. Truck drivers too busy building roads to use them and so forth.