Skip to comments.Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science (focusing on white diseases)
Posted on 03/16/2014 5:22:19 AM PDT by reaganaut1
American science, long a source of national power and pride, is increasingly becoming a private enterprise.
In Washington, budget cuts have left the nations research complex reeling. Labs are closing. Scientists are being laid off. Projects are being put on the shelf, especially in the risky, freewheeling realm of basic research. Yet from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, science philanthropy is hot, as many of the richest Americans seek to reinvent themselves as patrons of social progress through science research.
Fundamentally at stake, the critics say, is the social contract that cultivates science for the common good. They worry that the philanthropic billions tend to enrich elite universities at the expense of poor ones, while undermining political support for federally sponsored research and its efforts to foster a greater diversity of opportunity geographic, economic, racial among the nations scientific investigators.
Historically, disease research has been particularly prone to unequal attention along racial and economic lines. A look at major initiatives suggests that the philanthropists war on disease risks widening that gap, as a number of the campaigns, driven by personal adversity, target illnesses that predominantly afflict white people like cystic fibrosis, melanoma and ovarian cancer.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The poor should kick in and help.
“American science, long a source of national power and pride, is increasingly becoming a private enterprise.”
The problem as I see it is that university and government scientists are driven to seek funding, not solutions. I’m convinced that if cancer research had no government grants it would have gone the way of Polio. Maybe private sponsorship will give us better results.
Well, I recall a campaign to eliminate sickle cell anemia...
We obviously need more money for research for HIV/AIDS and sickle cell anemia.
There are a lot of rich black people. Let them throw some money in. How about Oprah?
richest black people in america
What? You didn’t know that Eli Whitney, Robert Fulton, Samuel Colt, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were government employees?
Would you willingly put all of the funding for our scientific studies into the hands of people like Nancy Pelosi, Sheila Jackson Lee and Hank Johnson? It is not as though these private donors all conspire to fund some things and not others. They fund those things that the, as individuals, find interesting.
This is a basic Darwinian process........ survival of the fittest.
Being a minority with special needs means those needs can not be met because limited resources are expended for the greater good.
The whole point of the Obama presidency was to destroy the natural order.
There are plenty of rich people who are not white. Maybe they would choose to fund research into diseases which do not affect whites.
After the garbage about kids eating lead-based paint, sickle cell anemia, etc., maybe the majority race in this country should try to cure diseases which affect them. After all, unless someone is trying to kill off the majority ethnic group, it would be cost-effective to eliminate the diseases which may affect the majority of the people.
Otherwise, move to a locale where the demographics are different.
Next thing you know, we'll all be required to shoot ourselves in the foot because someone else has a limp--all in the name of "equality".
Sans whitey, this world devolves to North Korea in a hurry .. and stays there.
In a word, you nailed it.
I think this article is meant to fan the fires of racism, and is not a real commentary on the state of research. Scientific research has always been funded by a mixture of public and private financing.
In my experience, private donors tend to give for specific disease research. But no one forces scientists to take money for a specific kind of research—they look for the donors funding the research they like to do, and ask for the money from them.
And everything is about breast cancer, rather than prostate cancer. I’ve never seen a blue ribbon for a prostate cancer awareness run...
It is the job of news outlets to not merely report the news, but give it an angle that makes it interesting. It’s what the NYT is doing here. They are attempting to create a story with the race baiting and culture war. But the real story is a paragraph’s worth. It’s not really controversial and won’t sell papers.
That's because lot of people with untreated prostate cancer die of old age.
I actually learned, in PUBLIC SCHOOL, back in the sixties in grade school how to use my brain to interpret news stories.
I remember the example to this day from third grade. They gave the same story in two versions.
Man breaks in to struggling family owned bakery, doing $150 (a lot of money back then, btw) damage to the shop window and stealing a loaf of bread. Police have the man in custody. The owner of the shop is distraught at the damage to his shop and hopes customers will be patient as the damage is repaired.
A man who had been unable to find work, and in a desperate need to feed his family, broke a window in a local bakery to gain access to a single loaf of bread needed to feed his starving family. The police have taken him from his family and put him in custody.
Both stories were biased. One for the owner and one for the thief.
With the lesson and discussion that followed, I learned in GRADE SCHOOL how to separate the wheat from the chaff (opinion and bias) in news stories and get to the core.
We decided that the story is that a man, for whatever reason, broke the law and was in jail for his crime. Everything else was a reporter foisting his personal opinion on us. That was information for the jury.
The only logical result will be billionaires figuring out how to get better care...for billionaires.
That’s because lot of people with untreated prostate cancer die of old age.
I think people who read and believe the New York Times are among the most racist people in America. How could they not be? What effin’ crap this article is!
I wish it were that easy. Polio was caused by a single virus, and it turned out fairly straightforward to make a vaccine for it. Cancer is a general term for a lot of different diseases with complex causes. We are making progress in the fight against cancer. We can prevent a few cancers and treat others, and the death rate from cancer has gone down. But finding a permanent cure or figuring out how to prevent all cancer is still a long ways away.
There may be a lot of money in research, and it is true that scientists are always asking for funding. But they are not getting rich from it. The funding goes for lab supplies, equipment, hired help, graduate students, etc., which are all expensive. People whose main goal is to get rich don't go into research. There are many other professions one can choose if one's main goal is to get rich, and none of those other professions is as difficult to enter as science. Getting a PhD is *not* trivial.
Because historically, so many cures have been discovered by government agencies, unlike private ones. If I can think of an example, I'll post it.
Science for CENTURIES was a private enterprise. Only the rich could afford the time and resources to noodle around with stuff.
I know someone going for a doctorate in biology. To quote: "the key is to find something to research that costs less than your grant."
Yes, he's a liberal.
If I remember correctly wasn’t Edison’s Laboratory and research center a ‘Private’ entity and so was Bell Labs, Westinghouse and others?
Really now, it’s only been since NASA came on the scene that the Government got it’s grubby fingers into the research ‘Pie’ in earnest. And now today private industry and the Universities look first to government to fund their research.
“What? You didnt know that Eli Whitney, Robert Fulton, Samuel Colt, Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were government employees?’
Well, it is plain to me that they were until the budget was slashed to the bone. My kids history book probably says that. How could our congressman be so uncaring by repeating history and cutting our budget today?
My dad died of prostate cancer 2 years ago. It’s far from rare I believe.
Instead of sitting on their butts and doing nothing, maybe they could get a home chemistry set and start doing their own experimentation
And the funding that they seek is all politically based.
This is getting so tiresome that I'm almost eager for the shooting to start.
The biggest problem with cancer treatment research is that some of the most effective treatments require lifestyle changes for the patient and don’t provide huge profits for the medical industry.
And they will primarily give funding to the people who they think are most likely to produce results, without regard for "diversity" or affirmative action.
Yet another irony that the left decries Republicans cutting research dollars, then cuts real research even deeper in the name of subsidizing faux science.
“Cancer is a general term for a lot of different diseases with complex causes.”
One problem, as I see it, is the metric the government chose; shrinking the tumor. So, treatments were developed which did that, but they only worked on a percentage of the continuous mutations. When the treatment wiped out the mutations it was effective against (causing shrinkage) only the mutations it was not effective against were left to multiply.
The government insisted on a molecular biological approach and only funded those efforts. Alternative approaches like treatments that prevented the growth of feeder arteries and veins were not investigated until recently. Some scientists urged treating symptoms rather than trying to kill the underlying mechanism as that is a moving target. They didn’t get government funding and the government is the only game. Survival rates for some cancers hasn’t changed since the ‘50’s, which would argue for a different approach.
I don’t accuse scientists of getting rich. But when I worked at a college lab they viewed grants as their job, not finding solutions. I’m sure there are dedicated scientists. But they must share funding with hacks who simply like university life.
They can fund all the black scientists to work on black diseases.
Global warming exists because of government grants. Period.
WIth Obamacare, only officials in the Federal Gov’t will have access to state of the art medical care.
The rest of you peasants have a “duty to die”, lest you deplete the coffers of the vote buying, entitlement programs.
“There are many other professions one can choose if one’s main goal is to get rich”
I was at a wedding reception last night for a couple of Duke PhDs. They seem to be doing just fine moneywise.
DUH only a few diseases are race centric. My Endo’s office is full of all races. Fibromyalgia-FMS, MD, MS, LGD no know color, nor doses the Big C cancer. FMS is symptom treated, and the drugs make it worse as they have the same side effects as the disease.
OA/OP hits all races too. Diabetes, thyroid issues, digestive issues, you name it any race could have it. No one is immune from GERD/IBS either.
Breast cancer can come down the Male line. My 2 Aunts married 2 brothers, both their daughters have the genetic link from their dad’s side. And some of their daughters have it to, to pass on to their daughters.
Orphan diseases like FMS are not being well researched, 1-2% of population have it 80% are women, most are also Hypothyroid. So add GENDER to that idiot article.
Damaged Care Break Down of Health Care
First Do No Harm
“Being a minority with special needs means those needs can not be met because limited resources are expended for the greater good.”
Actually, there is a debate about that. You will make more money if you can cure baldness in men rather than a fatal rare disease. Ditto for acne.
Patent law currently gives more years to “orphan drugs” which only treat rare fatal diseases.
Then of course there is the basic research vs. applied research debated.
Basic research is knowledge for knowledge sake but often leads to great advances, quantum leaps if you will down the road but also often leads to dead ends and wasted money.
Applied research is research to solve a specific problem which has a higher success rate but is rarely a quantum jump.
They have the smart people, and they have lots of poor sick people who would be willing to engage in clinical trials in exchange for a shot at a cure. The single biggest research expense in US research are the testing and trials. They also don't have the trial-lawyer overhead to worry about if some of the clinical trial test subjects get hit by side effects.
They would still have to do US clinical trials to get FDA approval, but they would ONLY need to test drugs that already passed their trials. And if the US FDA is slow on granting approval for Chinese cancer treatments, that just means that US cancer patients will get on a plane to Hong Kong.
A PhD probably earns more than someone with a BS in the same field, but the average family physician earns significantly more than the PhD, and a specialized physician earns several times more. I have talked to physicians who earn over $400,000 per year--while I may never see a 6 figure salary with my PhD. That's okay--I didn't go into science for the money; no one does.
“Joking that his [Obama] grades in physics made him a dubious candidate for scientist in chief,”
You don’t say? How about releasing your university records so we can all get the joke? /not holding breath.
“In Washington, budget cuts have left the nations research complex reeling. Labs are closing. Scientists are being laid off. Projects are being put on the shelf, especially in the risky, freewheeling realm of basic research.”
And just whose fault is THAT? Maybe if the scientist in chief wasn’t spending a trillion dollars on “stimulus”, requiring NASA to spend scarce funds on Muslim outreach, and doing his best to expand the welfare state, we might be able to fund a few more projects. *SMH*
I would think Duke faculty would be paid well. What field were they in?
“Global warming exists because of government grants. Period.”
You’ve got that right. It’s the politics of fear. In the ‘60’s it was an upcoming ice age, peak oil and Russian nukes. Global warming was easier and you could ascribe any horror to it you wanted; mass migrations, flooded cities, total human extinction, the rise of dreaded conservatism...
And, if it gets too ridiculous, you ridicule the other side and declare them evil deniers. Shun them! Cancel their funding until they see the light.
I guess he's NOT the smartest man in the room all the time. Let's give him a high school physics test and see how he does. Or maybe some "gotcha" physics questions from interviewers.
"President obama, please state Newton's Second Law and give us a few examples in daily life."
Look at everything impoverished people of color have given us and see how we repay them... By increasing our own control over God’s diseases! All you need to do is catch a glimpse of any ER on any weekend night and you can see how the white establishment uses its ill-gotten powers to manipulate the health and welfare of America’s under-appreciated class. It’s time for these oppressors: the inventors, creators, business owners, patent holders, to bow out and make room for the new leaders. It is their savvy, their drive, their long-quashed determination, that will move America forward. First, however, let us please help give them free food and stuff.