Well, helping chemotherapy and any research certainly does have a a profit motive at certain points, but if you recall I was pointing out the research I was involved with, long before this outcome was a hypothesis (as far as I know at least). The lab I worked in at the time had five people and was mostly funded by NIH, there was still a small bit of funding coming from a corporative study with a pharmaceutical company from a few years prior. But our funding was based on grants, and those grants in theory were based on our research to date, although in truth a lot of funding is based on name and institution. Referencing the Druker lab again (and they are amazing) they could submit a cartoon at this point and get funding, so there is some truth to that.
But as an example I did end up doing research on chemotherapeutics towards the end, but it did not come from profit motive at all. It came about because we were doing research on inhibition of protein synthesis, and partnered up with another scientist who published a result on chemotherapeutics that happened to unknowingly bolster our research. We ended up helping each other and both labs succeeded for the effort. There are many labs who do look at research from a growth perspective, grow the lab, grow the reputation,..., but from my personal experience that seemed to be generally looked down upon. More labs based their research in great part on what they believed had potential for an interesting breakthrough. In the private sector, in general at least, there are more directives that come down from less scientifically educated bureaucrats as to what needs to be researched. A field of study for the purpose of a specific goal, good intentioned or otherwise. This is true for Honda or the ACS, they both have specific goals. In many ways, that's great, goals are needed. Saying we want to cure cancer is a good thing. But, there is also something to be said for letting the people who went through a decade of schooling in the sciences to use their knowledge to choose an area of interest that might otherwise go unexplored, like our interest in inhibition of protein synthesis.
Personally, I see a great partnership between the public and private sectors with regards to science exploration. Without industry, we would be decades behind where we are currently. Likewise, without the public research sector, I think we would be likewise lagging. It's not an all or nothing situation. Yes, i did take a swipe at your beliefs, but not quite in the way I think it was taken. I do totally believe that public research is necessary and in great part is a building block for the success of modern America, but that doesn't discount the importance of private sector funding either. I just don't trust, especially over the long term, that private sector will adequately fund science, especially basic sciences, the areas without direct links to ROI. And in my estimation, it's those areas that need the most support.
You and I disagree on this fundamentally, in another thread it was protection of federal lands. I see great good in having the public assure that over time research on ambiguous topics continues, i see great good in assuring that over time land is preserved for future generations to enjoy. I see a lot of benefit to the public assuring protection of our air and water. You have faith in industry, I don't. Profit motives assure one thing, that profit comes first. If that means killing research that isn't bearing fruit, then so be it. If that means mining or foresting land that won't return to it's natural glory for centuries or longer, than so be it. If that means poisoning the air or water, than so be it. That doesn't mean industry is evil, just that it has different motives. THat's why both the public and private sectors are so important, they balance each other out, one makes sure our economy is protected and we have great new gadgets and medications, the other makes sure our health is protected and lays the foundation for long term growth both financially and technologically.
This does not mean there aren't a bunch of individual examples of govt making sound financial decision and industry making altruistic research breakthroughs, just that their overall motives aren't set up for those outcomes.
