Comment · Thu, April 4, 2013 · Ceretropic
Why Spend a Billion Dollars to Map the Human Brain? - Dana Smith
What they were answering
FeatherMaster · -2 points
There is no gain from public funding for science. There is an inverse relationship between public sector funding for science and private sector funding for science.
Public funding for science also causes other problems, because the government politicizes science and won't fund opposing viewpoints, which is necessary for scientific progress. It also makes scientists dependent on the governmen for funding, which causes problems in the long run.
You've brought up a crossover fallacy, that if this gets government funding, it'll have numerous applications and it'll be worth it. It is wrong, because this is something the private sector would do on its own; it would do a better job of it too.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
You're bringing up inefficiencies as an argument against all government funding. That is a logical fallacy. Of course the funding is only worth it if it is used properly. Controlling the proper distribution of funds is a separate issue to the main concept of public sector investment. Did you read the article we are commenting on?
the Human Genome Project, which cost $2.7 billion to complete but has reportedly produced a return of $140 to every dollar spent. This was manifested through pharmaceutical and biotechnology developments, as well as subsequent start-up companies. This turnover has the potential to grow even further through future reductions in health care spending from medical developments, and the hope is that BRAIN will produce similar high returns.
That is an example of government funding creating huge monetary benefits. Are all programs going to be run efficiently? No, they won't. However, we need to address that issue separately.
Without public sector funding, many issues would take the back seat in the private sector. The private sector is all about profits. I run my own business. I make the best business decisions for my company to maximize profit. I do so in an ethical manner, but I work with many people that do not. I cease relations with companies that behave unethically; sometimes to the detriment of my own profit. However, many companies out there will not do this. I also take directions that will have the best chance of me profiting. This means that I have to let go of certain projects that I would be amazing at. I have to turn down things that would ultimately be very beneficial to everyone. The risk/reward of those opportunities are too high, so I move on. Public sector funding does not have that limitation. It can go down those paths that can possibly lead to innovation, even though the risk is high and the direct monetary returns are low. This is an advantage of the public sector. It does not have to be a slave to profits.
For a long time I thought how you did. I thought that the government should be run like a corporation, with strict adherence to balance sheets. However, I have come to realize that the government shouldn't waste it's most valuable asset by trying to be a corporation. That would give it all the drawbacks and none of the advantages. It has the possibility to push through these programs and eventually make them profitable for society. Many of these programs would never be undertaken by private organizations. And if they were to be undertaken, the benefits would cost each person so much to use. That is what profit is to a company. That is the entire basis for their existence. Governments can look at the bigger picture, and provide things for much different reasons.
Am I disgusted by the waste and inefficiencies that our government shows all the time? Hell yes I am! However, we can work through those issues on a case by case basis, without having to completely stop all public sector funding. There are benefits that outweigh the costs, and we can make it work.