[EM] [RangeVoting] The Need for People-Friendly Research & Development

[Raph Frank]

article wrote:
> But new ideas for reducing energy waste or increasing the efficiency of various systems and devices are less closely linked to profit margins of large corporations.

The real issue here is that people don't actually care about those things.

Companies target their R&D on stuff that is actually desirable to people.

> So we don't see a lot of basic work on novel heat insulation methods

There are companies which do stuff like pump insulation into the walls
of your house.

> In the area of agriculture, most research is done to benefit production on large factory farms,
> rather than to find better ways for small farmers (or home gardeners) to operate

What is so great about small farms?  The US produces a massive amount
of food due to economies of scale.

> During the past half century, tens of thousands of new chemicals have been introduced into the human
> environment ... Most have not been tested at all for toxicity

.. and yet we aren't dead.  Companies know that they would face legal
action if their
products turned out not to be safe (or even just lose customer base
due to the scandal)

> In fact, if it turned out that the use of cell phones, for example, was dangerous ...

Mobile phones save lives every year due to being able to be used for
emergency calls, not to mind their general usefulness.

> But these companies have little interest in finding cures for diseases.

True, the problem here is that it costs so much to get a product to market.

People should be allowed to take medicine that hasn't met FDA
guidelines (assuming it is properly labelled as such).

> Almost all scientists and engineers work either for private companies or for universities largely funded by corporation money.

I would say that they also work for the government.  Take global
warming, government funded scientists say it is real, ones funded by
the oil industry say it isn't.

Both sides have a vested interest, if it is real, then governments get
to implement things like carbon taxes and if it isn't then that
benefits the oil industries.

Increasing the number of government scientists isn't going to improve
things, unless you assume the government wants unbiased research.

> (FDA) all, or most, of the committee members usually have financial connections that may bias their views

Well, the do somewhat require double blind testing.  However, I do
agree in general, the FDA is not a net win for medical research.

The medical market at the GP level is also very restrictive, which
also doesn't help things.

> The mission of such laboratories would be to explore science and technology deemed to be of potential value to the people of the country.

Who makes that determination?  You are assuming that a bureaucrat
knows more about an industry than companies working in it.

> Topics for medical research could be chosen on the basis of potential benefits for people, rather than to maximize opportunities for corporative profit.

Again, you just assume that will happen.  Could you explain the exact
mechanism by which funding would be decided.

At least with companies if their product doesn't sell, there is some
feedback.  There is no negative consequences for members of a
committee if their decisions turn out to be the wrong ones.

Back to the FDA, it prefers to delay release of a potentially
lifesaving treatment than risk that it is dangerous.  Ideally, it
should be risk neutral, and release as soon as the expected number of
lives saved exceeds zero.

> If we want the public to benefit, then the public should pay,

The public does pay (directly) for the fruits of corporate research.

> and the natural mechanism for this is the government

... or the market

> Relatively unbiased experts would be available

No, just biased in a different direction.  Politics would start
deciding what gets funding.

> consideration should also be given to reforming our broken patent system

I agree, patents do more damage than good.  They are basically a
hidden method to create cartels.

> Since US taxpayers would be paying the bills, provision might be made to give American companies some modest advantages

This is not needed, a US citizen benefits just as much if the product
they buy is made abroad.