|
Some good points made in the discussion to a post on the low cost-effectiveness of government-funded medical research:
Writing in The Scientist Frederick Sachs argues that the large increase in funding for the US National Institutes of Health did not produce a commensurate increase in scientific productivity as measured by papers published.
...
Geez. An inefficient, ineffective, socialist, bureaucratic research system (as measured by its failure to cure most anything over 40 years) hits diminishing returns...
Am I the only one not surprised?
Sublimate it as rapidly as possible into a free-market, sink or swim, enterprise and maybe we will see something good come of it.
That point is made at greater length and in greater detail in the comments by those who work inside the system. It's an important point for people with an eye on the next few decades of progress - if you want to see significant results in the advancement of human longevity, merely throwing resources at the problem is inadequate in and of itself. Without the right incentives, accountability, freedom and community, there will be immense waste, and the immense cost of missed opportunity. All spending by centralized government bodies is of that nature; no incentives for progress, no accountability for failure to achieve, and every incentive to keep money flowing above all else. Human nature leads to an inevitable mess - and we should be smarter than that by now.
It should not be at all surprising to see bloated funding and no benefit to show for the increase - that's the story across the board in government programs, and we all suffer for it.
Technorati tags: libertarian, medical research, politics
|
|
Posted by Reason
|
|
|
|
