Comment by edwardbernays
4 days ago
There is no private market entity with an incentive to provide research to the public, so in this sense there is no crowding out. Providing research to the public enables the discovery of new products which would otherwise have not been created. Public research is a public good that makes our nation happier, healthier, and wealthier.
Let's ignore FOSS contributions for a moment, which very much contradict your claim that private companies don't contribute research to the public.
Outside software technology: there is a series of papers from Grossman (going back to the 80s!) that analyzes basic versus applied research in a macroeconomic framework. Basic research _can_ be a public good, applied research can be crowded out. Combined with microeconomic research that monopolies can be dynamically efficient (investing in applied and basic R&D, like Bell Labs) and you get several examples and theories that contradict your statement that "there is no private market entity with an incentive to provide research to the public."
Another real world example in hardware that contradicts this claim is the evolution of building control systems. Before the advent of IOT, so, circa 1980s - 2010s, you saw increasing sharing and harmonization of competing electronics standards because it turned out to be more efficient to be modular, not have to re-hire subcontractors at exorbitant rates to maintain or replace components that go haywire, etc.
Including FOSS software is so wild in this conversation that it's ridiculous. You mean creating a product as a loss leader to get people into an ecosystem, farm social capital, create a sales funnel, or get free labor from the community to provide QA? The creation and release of software is NOWHERE NEAR the same category as "doing actual real scientific research" that it just smells of incredibly bad faith argumentation.
Economic analysis? Another intelligence product that requires essentially no staff, no actual R&D, no equipment besides computers? Brother, you have to be kidding me.
The hardware thing is just companies evolving to a shared standard.
Do you have even a little bit of a clue how hard it is to do good pharmacological research? Toxicological? Biological? Chemical? Physical? You have mentioned intelligence products with 0 investment cost and 0 risk of failure.
This is perhaps one of the most fart-sniffing tech-centric perspectives I have ever been exposed to. Go read some actual research by actual scientists and come back when you can tell me why, for instance, Eli Lilley would ever make their data or internal R&D public.
Jonas Salk did it. He is an extremely rare exception, and his incentive was public health. Notice that his incentive was markedly not financial.
Market entities with a financial incentive, whose entire business model and success is predicated on their unique R&D results, have 0 incentive to release research to the public.
I apologize that my points in my prior comment were so easy to misunderstand. Your response here shows a dramatic superficiality in understanding each of these areas I brought up, when not missed entirely. My hope is you can move past your rhetorical stumbling blocks in the conversation -- if that proves impossible, I'm happy to leave things as this being my last comment in our shared thread.
(1) FOSS is not only the next hyped front-end framework or modern data stack funnel. I encourage you to do more research for what European universities and organizations are doing. Not everyone follows the American or Chinese extractive approaches to software.
Further, while many corporations do indeed farm social capital and perform other appreciably maladative and cynic-inducing behaviors, the universe and the space of organizations is large. There are a great many examples of governments adopting public research and development released by private entities -- in FOSS and in other contexts.
Additionally, the fact that FOSS-product-focused companies tend to launch _after_ FOSS becomes successful to support the FOSS offering with associated services is quite a bit different from what is perhaps a FAANG-induced cynicism. To reiterate - the universe and the space of organizations is large.
(2) You interpreted that I did pointed to economic analysis as public vs. private R&D. This is a misinterpretation on your part and I encourage a re-read. I pointed to findings and studies to help you understand where the organizational and market frameworks for analysis stand.
(3) I am a researcher and regularly publish my findings, under the banner of the university I support, under non-profits I support, and under the company I run. I appreciate your experience has made you cynical. Lets break down this section.
> This is perhaps one of the most fart-sniffing tech-centric perspectives I have ever been exposed to.
This was not received as a good-faith statement, and further discussion on it will only engender argument. I suggest we move beyond trivial digs.
> Eli Lilley would ever make their data or internal R&D public.
Not to shill for them, but your point on Eli Lilly is incorrect. Eli Lilly has worked towards more transparent release of information -- they voluntarily launched an online clinical trial registry starting in 2002 (for Phase II–IV trials initiated on/after October 15, 2002) and extended full trial registration (including Phase I) from October 1, 2010.[0] Since 2014, Lilly has published clinical study results (Phase 2/3) regardless of outcome, adhering to PhRMA/EFPIA transparency principles. Patient-level data on marketed-approved indications is available to qualified researchers via a controlled-access third-party portal.[1] Beginning in 2021, Lilly has also produced plain‑language summaries of Phase 2–4 results in English, and more recently extended plain‑language summaries to Phase 1 trials in the EU in compliance with new regulations.[1]
Especially the third point is relevant -- good government regulation leads to better sharing and transparency. Smart companies take regulation as an innovation opportunity.
> Jonas Salk did it. He is an extremely rare exception, and his incentive was public health. Notice that his incentive was markedly not financial.
Aye, and I wish that all medical and life-enhancing research could be accomplished as relatively cheaply or as magnanimously as Jonas Salk.
> Market entities with a financial incentive, whose entire business model and success is predicated on their unique R&D results, have 0 incentive to release research to the public.
Please refer to (2) for studies and theory for why this is untrue.
The number of market entities who only are built on unique R&D tend to fail due to poor delivery of product, so their incentive to release their R&D to the world is more or less moot. I do acknowledge existence of market entities who are built solely on operationalizing R&D -- I challenge the implicit claim that all market entities fall into this category.
[0] https://www.lilly.com/au/policies-reports/transparency-discl...
[1] https://sustainability.lilly.com/governance/business-ethics
You could argue that Bell Labs was essentially government funded, as the monopoly/concession of the entire US telephony infrastructure is what made it possible, and research at universities was not funded anywhere near current levels.
They were also forced in the 1950s to license all their innovations freely, as compensation for holding a monopoly. Which only strengthens the parent’s point that private institutions have little incentive to work for public benefit.
Galileo wants a word with you ... from heaven.