If only biotech researchers had heard of this $30 billion just GIVEN away. Everyone would be right there at the trough, but this isn't the case.
I wouldn't call most of it a free lunch, it takes actual merit and scientific integrity to get it funded. You can read all about the kind of stuff you have to do to get considered for funding at the different agencies, but it certainly isn't giving anything away. If you were actually trying to get these grants yourself you would know this.
State funding decisions are certainly different and open up the possibility for giving out money that eventually doesn't pay off, but overall the idea in the states is to keep or attract their scientists and engineers so that they can get more industries and businesses to come there and take advantage of the skilled workforce. Overall that benefits the state economy and increases the amount of taxes received, thereby becoming return on investment.
The additional ROI for health-related technology development can potentially be life saving devices and drugs, but to the State governments the first thought is monetary investment, the tipping point in the decision is impact to the population.
Your comparision to the amount of money taken in by the Industry of biotech is really an apples to oranges comparison; most of the funding goes to academic institutions (Universities and the like) which then go on to transfer developed technologies out to small businesses or corporations, or not, instead spending the money on the research and the students trained in the process. Big pharma companies have the money they need to pursue their own research, they don't like getting grants because of all the strings attached (like publishing results, public access, potential licensing issues).
Make fun of the pharma companies all you want for their questionable marketing tactics and nice salesmen visits to doctors offices. They still produce the drugs that people use, and while public funds may have been used for the initial discovery in an academic or small business setting, the companies themselves bankrolled their own research, clinical trials and everything else that goes into their FDA application.
Also, pharma companies aren't the end-all be-all of biotech.
Yeah, I love the people who decry the horrors of recording companies and the pittance that artists/writers make, and at the same time claim the benefits of buying or borrowing used products.
The artist will never get any money in that case, the people working on creating catchy art and advertisements won't get any money, and if everyone thought this way there wouldn't be any money in writing books or making music beyond tips in a jar.
Corporate America does happen to care about terrorism, because if it hits them, they could go bankrupt. At the very least, assets and expertise are destroyed, and the money that would have been made at those locations and by those people would be entirely lost.
Sure, some construction companies could make money by rebuilding infrastructure, but that would be taking time away from projects they would otherwise be doing, and in essence it is break even. Insurance companies have to pay out money they could otherwise re-invest in other businesses in the stock market. Overall, money is lost and most businesses would probably tell you that.
The repeated falsehood that Corporate America (in total) doesn't care about terrorism or would benefit overall is getting a little boring. After all, it doesn't make sense how destruction of things and people could possibly make more money than creation of things and jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
If only biotech researchers had heard of this $30 billion just GIVEN away. Everyone would be right there at the trough, but this isn't the case. I wouldn't call most of it a free lunch, it takes actual merit and scientific integrity to get it funded. You can read all about the kind of stuff you have to do to get considered for funding at the different agencies, but it certainly isn't giving anything away. If you were actually trying to get these grants yourself you would know this. State funding decisions are certainly different and open up the possibility for giving out money that eventually doesn't pay off, but overall the idea in the states is to keep or attract their scientists and engineers so that they can get more industries and businesses to come there and take advantage of the skilled workforce. Overall that benefits the state economy and increases the amount of taxes received, thereby becoming return on investment. The additional ROI for health-related technology development can potentially be life saving devices and drugs, but to the State governments the first thought is monetary investment, the tipping point in the decision is impact to the population. Your comparision to the amount of money taken in by the Industry of biotech is really an apples to oranges comparison; most of the funding goes to academic institutions (Universities and the like) which then go on to transfer developed technologies out to small businesses or corporations, or not, instead spending the money on the research and the students trained in the process. Big pharma companies have the money they need to pursue their own research, they don't like getting grants because of all the strings attached (like publishing results, public access, potential licensing issues). Make fun of the pharma companies all you want for their questionable marketing tactics and nice salesmen visits to doctors offices. They still produce the drugs that people use, and while public funds may have been used for the initial discovery in an academic or small business setting, the companies themselves bankrolled their own research, clinical trials and everything else that goes into their FDA application. Also, pharma companies aren't the end-all be-all of biotech.
Yeah, I love the people who decry the horrors of recording companies and the pittance that artists/writers make, and at the same time claim the benefits of buying or borrowing used products. The artist will never get any money in that case, the people working on creating catchy art and advertisements won't get any money, and if everyone thought this way there wouldn't be any money in writing books or making music beyond tips in a jar.
Corporate America does happen to care about terrorism, because if it hits them, they could go bankrupt. At the very least, assets and expertise are destroyed, and the money that would have been made at those locations and by those people would be entirely lost. Sure, some construction companies could make money by rebuilding infrastructure, but that would be taking time away from projects they would otherwise be doing, and in essence it is break even. Insurance companies have to pay out money they could otherwise re-invest in other businesses in the stock market. Overall, money is lost and most businesses would probably tell you that. The repeated falsehood that Corporate America (in total) doesn't care about terrorism or would benefit overall is getting a little boring. After all, it doesn't make sense how destruction of things and people could possibly make more money than creation of things and jobs.