Why are science programs better off led by for-profit companies

Money.

>>8744539
Depends entirely on whether the politicians or businessmen have the higher level of impatience (read: tendency to discount long-term costs in exchange for chasing short-term rewards). Could go either way.

This assumes a working definition of "doing science" as making investments with the goal of validating time-invariant facts about the world/universe.

>>8744539
here's how research works in modern academia

>corporate guys stumble upon something through educated guesswork, monkeys-at-a-typewriter tier trial and error, or dumb luck
>send their findings to a university along with a wad of dough to have the eggheads there formalize the discovery
>kick back a report/study/whatever
>profit

>>8744550
shekel factor

>>8744580
wrong

do I need to sell meth in order to get funding for wet wiring research

>>8744539
>The Art Of The Deal
Shouldn't "of" and "the" be in lower case?

>>8744539
Supposedly "private companies" are more efficient because they have an incentive to cut waste.

Of course this comes at a cost. They'll cut as much as they can to preserve their profits. And you have all the problems that come with arrogant, "smart" businessmen managing the real innovators.

>>8747964
>insinuating that donald trump won't be a good president
alright kiddo :^)

>>8747973

He's already failed the criteria for being a good president so why should anyone believe he would ever fulfil it in the future

>>8747930
yes

>>8744539
Government-run programs of any sort have no incentive to be particularily efficient, as their funding is, comparitively, independent of their results. A government-run medical research facility, for example, has little risk of being shut down if their experiments fail reproduce a working prosthetic limb. A private research group, on the other hand, is totally dependent on the profit from successful projects in order to continue their existance, and thus the are naturally incentivized to be more efficient and avoid mistakes.

>>8744539
It isn't necessarily better, even with the shekel factor.

If a business is going to invest in research, it means that they expect a return on it, and that means that the types of things they'll invest in will not always be what the biggest advancement of the field is, but what would be profitable to them.

If Investment in bioweapons = not a novel technology, good for profit

and investment in cancer cure = novel technology, bad for profit

then invest in bioweapons

What I'm trying to say is just cause corporate research is incentivized doesn't mean its the right type of stuff being worked on

>>8748163
What are the criteria of being a good president that he failed? Let me guess:
>Being a woman
>Being a nigger
>Being a cuck

>>8747935
Yes, they should.

>>8750032
Putting more incentive to avoid mistakes doesn't always end with avoiding mistakes. If you put a gun to the head of a researcher he might as well shit himself and be barely able to form a coherent thought. On the other hand efficiency can often hinder effects because a way to cut costs might also be a way you think is a good enough approximation for thing X but ends up being way off.

>>8750062
That's why a totally free market of private research is neede. Research groups which make poor descisions like that are weeded out, meaning only the most innovate and efficient groups are left - ensuring the highest possible quality of research. A government-funded group, on the other hand, can continue to make mistakes, wasting resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.

>>8744539
The vast majority of paradigm shifts and discoveries in science are the result of publicly funded research. Industrial research is too short sighted and not focused on making new discoveries but how to make a profit from old discoveries. I don't know how anyone can make OPs argument unless they literally operate on the belief that "CAPITALISM GOOD" and don't do any further research into the matter.

>>8750075
Why do you need a fully privatized system for competition? Scientists are motivated in large part by their egos, and the scarcity of funding makes science extremely competitive. I agree that the incentivization system could use some tweaking, but going to what you're suggesting is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What exactly is your level of experience in research? I get the feeling you don't have a very accurate picture of what it's like (I don't mean this offensively but I do get that vibe.)

>>8750083
Basic economic principles apply to all institutions. Do you really think that limiting funding will lead to better results?

>>8750085
I never said that. I understand the basics of economics principles, since I took micro and macro and since my parents are both economists and we talk about these things very often. A full free-market solution is not always a good response, especially in these public good scenarios. For example, the government limits the number of companies that can get a contract to make a power plant, because having multiple power plants competing in one city and laying their own individual power grids would inconvenience everyone. There's still competition for a contract but it's not a complete free market. Science is similar, there is fierce competition between labs and universities for funding.

>>8750055

>wah wah im a right wing retard

How the fuck can you expect a white guy to deal with womens/black issues? (some of the most pressing issues facing our civilisation)

try getting a fucking clue

>>8750099
Is this sarcasm