[quote=CA renter][quote=Djshakes][quote=CA renter]
Additionally, the taxpayers pay for the majority of our medical research, either through the NIH or public universities or grants, etc. Why should the private industry reap the rewards from the research (especially the foundational R&D) that the taxpayers have paid for?[/quote]
While NIH is government funded, not many institutions have access to this money. A majority of research is paid for my pharma companies through clinical trials and philanthropic funds distributed through grants.
– Previous accountant for the research department of Scripps[/quote]
The NIH, alone, provides approximately 30% of the funding for medical research:
The impact of even small NIH budget cuts is severe: The agency funds about 30 percent of all medical research in the U.S., according to the Journal of American Medical Association.
Basic scientific research (including medical) is primarily funded by government sources. Many of our current medical innovations came from basic research conducted by government agencies not affiliated with NIH (NSF, USDA, NASA, etc.). Note that the “other” category in the following link includes government funding from state and local governments, as well as universities and colleges using their own funding:
“When public money is invested in university-based basic research there is tremendous return on investment. Research creates jobs directly for those involved and indirectly for many others, through innovations that lead to new technologies, new industries and new companies.
The content and examples provided here illustrate some of the economic benefits the nation reaps when companies are created as a result of discoveries in federally funded university laboratories. While there are countless companies that have made use of the fruits of academic research, the roots of the companies highlighted here can be traced directly to seminal research conducted at a university and sponsored by a federal agency.
Were it not for the federally supported research, these companies – their products and services, and the jobs and economic growth that have resulted – likely would not exist.”
From the same link:
“The federal government is the primary source of funding for basic research conducted in the United States, providing some 60 percent of funding. The second largest source of basic research funding is the academic institutions themselves.”
IMHO, the riskiest and least profitable component of scientific research is the basic research from which almost all of our technologies are developed. The majority of that research is publicly funded. Additionally, the government funds much of our applied research as well.
It is only when something has a good chance of becoming profitable that a private company will step in to carry the research further. The hard work at the basic level, and the riskiest part of the research, is already done as a result of public funding.[/quote]
Makes sense. I think dollar wise nothing compares to NIH funding. They throw huge dollar amounts around in the form of grants. However, like I said, a majority of institutions don’t have access to this money. It is an extremely rigorous process to get these funds. So a majority of this money is concentrated in few institutions. TSRI, UCSD, etc. There is still a lot of research that goes on through pharma and donated funds. The dollar amounts obviously don’t compare as the money comes from individuals and business as opposed to government spending other people’s taxes. So yes, dollar amount is greater with government, number of projects funded by the government is smaller though.
