Hacker News Reader

Comment by vmception | Hacker News Reader

Researcher fails to make money for half a decade because they were working on something that they wouldn't figure out for an additional two decades.

Okay...?

If this still bothers you, please tell me what kind of organization would exist to support 25 years of false starts, and what needs to change to make that kind of organization exist.

View on HN

You realize that academic research can take years or decades to pay off right? Look at nuclear fusion research. Should we give up just because we are still decades away even after decades of research?

I think this is a major problem in our society. We expect immediate profits off of research, but that limits us to research that is less bold and innovative. We should allow our brilliant scientists to follow their passions instead of following grants.

You have to give up on some research, since there are only finite resources available.

This means you will abandon some projects that would ultimately have been very successful. That's true for every possible strategy.

I understand that argument, and it is usually in the context of the folly of quarterly results in the private sector, which is a far cry from six years and twenty five years.

Regardless, back to my question, what needs to change to support all the other researchers toiling away right now that won't gain any consensus or utility till the year 2050.

Government funding? More "charity" from billionaires?

Our society has plenty of money to support people like her and her research. That's the point of the academy in the traditional sense: not a vocational school, but a gateway to new understandings of the world.

We need a mindset of doing research for its own sake rather than just as a way to profit. What profit could come of going to the moon? Yet we developed many technologies along the way.

Realistically, the funding would probably need to come (and already does come) from the government. The government should be funding manned missions to Mars and investing much more in longshot technologies like nuclear fusion, to name a couple obvious ones.

See lb504's answer.

Such an organization used to exist; it was called a university, and it offered tenure in part, in theory, to support researchers whose work might bear no fruit for decades.

> what needs to change to make that kind of organization exist.

Stop modelling universities, national education and research systems on profit-seeking businesses.

Businesses already cover that niche; it's entirely unhelpful for universities to exist with a profit-making premise.

> If this still bothers you, please tell me what kind of organization would exist to support 25 years of false starts, and what needs to change to make that kind of organization exist.

Academic research is supposed to be for such long-term research. Plenty of scientists research for entire life, just to explore dead ends.

Also, WTF it is considered as OK to base scientific research decisions on profit generated within 5 years? (I know how it happens and why, but considering it as OK is ridiculous)

> If this still bothers you, please tell me what kind of organization would exist to support 25 years of false starts, and what needs to change to make that kind of organization exist.

A Federal Universal Basic Income along with a Single Payer Healthcare system would go a long way to supporting 25 years of false starts for projects where the primary initial investment is intellectual labor. Many science, engineering, and cultural projects fit this description.

Single payer healthcare, absolutely. Negotiating a market rate between professionals and the entire public is the most optimal approach for the consumers whom; in a moment of need, won't really be able to shop around and choose.

While I do believe there needs to be a first world floor to living conditions, I've come to more understand UBI as one more way of killing the middle class. It's the Supply side, a lack of competition, that is out of whack for many of the most expensive things in the US, and probably most other industrialized nations.

UBI increases how much the poorest can pay, it does nothing to limit how much can be demanded by the rent-seeking rich. In effect UBI is a subsidy to the rich and an attack on the middle class.

But the same supply side problem is also an argument against single payer healthcare. Maybe you've negotiated an awesome rate for the public, but then this comes back to bite you in the form of shortages and/or reduced R&D of new treatments. I mean, essentially it is one big monopsonistic price control regime, right? On the other hand if we can somehow bolster competition, increase doctors trained, etc., then maybe prices can come down on their own to a level accessible to the public again.

If a thing is desired by society but the market is unable to fulfill that need that sounds like an area the government (the people's organization of foundation, first / last resort) should apply work. Though sometimes government can be the cause if regulations aren't well thought out and there's a failure to minimize unintended consequences.

If there aren't enough doctors as a whole, that's a sign that either the incentives and detriments offered by society are incorrect or that barriers to entry are too high for the market to function. (In the case of medical professionals in the US I've heard that a combination of artificial scarcity and malpractice worries are the issue. For the latter I'd like to see criminal (reckless endangerment, etc), rather than economic, outcomes for egregious cases; which should also apply to institutions training and certifying doctors. With that layer of protection the 'insurance' against being harmed should instead be covered by normal disability programs at the society level.

In the case of insufficient doctors in an area, that sounds like a great place for the military to have a base and provide civilization; though the doctors (and possibly other professionals) not existing there might also be a sign of larger issues.

If a place isn't economically viable anymore it is important to identify the root cause and fix it, or offer assistance to relocate to places that are useful for their residents and society.

Doubt that. We have full socialized healthcare and great unemployment benefits. Yet we also suffer from the same problems in academia.

Having those is pretty orthogonal to actually getting results in science. No need to mix them in.

Universities should actually fund (so indirectly by the goverment from taxes) long term research. That’s kinda the whole point of Universities, in addition to education. Long term research that doesn’t have immediate short them commercial interest. Not make the scientists be basically startup founders that must constantly pitch to get money.

And the reason we want to support that is because on long term there often is very useful commercial benefits that then improve everyones lives.

You're implying she could've done all this research in her bedroom? I doubt it.

No, they're not. They're implying that a world where the government takes an even more active role in promoting economic activity, and secures the fundamental aspects of human dignity for its citizens, would be a society where more people can spend time on their passions, which often are things like "develop a groundbreaking new style of vaccination".

there's already a country where the government is taking a very active role in promoting economic activity, specifically North Korea

Come on, are we being serious here? "Developing a groundbreaking new style of vaccination" requires far, far more support than just a salary. UBI/social safety nets are totally irrelevant here.

And yet, it was developed under free market principles and delivered to market with no one getting a UBI.

UBI is a fantasy for children.

My opinion is that this sort of long-term and/or high-risk research and development is precisely what universities and governments (and government grants) are for.

and what needs to change, for the researchers right now who won't have any useful milestone or breakthrough until the year 2050.

> If this still bothers you, please tell me what kind of organization would exist to support 25 years of false starts

Government, academia, VCs in industries with slower payoffs than software (i.e., most, including biotech).

OTOH, deciding which series of decades of false starts are worth continuing to support and which to cut off is...well, not an exact science would be an epic understatement.

I would expect academia to absolutely be the place for long-term, speculative research to be at the heart of what they do.

>If this still bothers you, please tell me what kind of organization would exist to support 25 years of false starts,

This is basically the whole point of academia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com