House Passes Stem Cell Bill

Damocles said:
They accept the funding and do it for the company, the company is therefore granted exclusive rights or non-exclusive patents to the research completed with their money.

Saying that this somehow was funded by the Feds is incomplete and clearly disingenuous. If the funding was by the feds they would have to pay for the patent granted to the University. Instead they get exclusive rights to many of the product that they pay for. This allows the University to hire better teachers, et al. Clearly the Feds did not fund the research. Pretending that because it was done by students at the direction of a Professor it was all public funds is a bit ridiculous when, in fact, if the Federal funds were there for the University to do what they wanted they would not accept the company funds.... The fact is, the company paid for the research and not the government.
Click to expand...

Part of what you're saying is true, but in fact all rights are not ceded to the company; a written legal agreement between the company and the university precedes any funds transferred and any research undertaken. The university, in fact, shares in any patents, etc., with the company. The researchers' names may appear on the patent, but generally that's as far as that part of the "glory" goes. Moreover, there are no financial considerations beyond those agreed to fund the research, which is very specifically outlined, and provisions are not made for exploratory research that isn't directly targeted to the company's requirements. Even publication of findings is restricted by that agreement, and cannot take place without the company's approval.

The researchers would not be considered for such an agreement unless they had established a reputation for excellence in the field the company itself is interested in pursuing. That reputation would have been earned, almost certainly, by work previously funded by government agencies. Most private funding, on the other hand, is typically less generous by necessity, and wouldn't be sufficient in itself to allow for the work involved in building such a reputation. In addition, private funding most often is also targetted toward a specific end.
 
"State of Wisconis providing taxpayer money, to fund Dr. James Thomsons stem cell work:"

So if the state is funding a PRIVATE company, by your standards that must make it private funding. Right?
 
"Wait a minute....you're saying that the University of Wisconsin, its researchers, it labs, its building, its infrastructure, its IT systems, its employee compensation packages, are not mostly paid by the State and with public support?"

Actually, UW's Research facilities WERE built by PRIVATE donations. Not by the state. That said, I think they did just get approval by the state for additional facilities and upgrades to existing facilities. Tuition pays for a good chunk of it as well and that is PRIVATE money, not public.
 
Superfreak said:
"State of Wisconis providing taxpayer money, to fund Dr. James Thomsons stem cell work:"

So if the state is funding a PRIVATE company, by your standards that must make it private funding. Right?
Click to expand...

I stand by what I said: public universites and labs get funding from both public and private sources. Most of the money is public.

Most basic research is done at public universities, and research labs, with most funding for BASIC scientific research coming fromt he public sector.

Even the Stem cell hero, Dr. James Thomson says lack of public funding is holding the science back. I posted his interview.

I also have no problem with states like california and wisconsin funding private researchers to do stem cell research. Its called a public-private partnership: it happens all the time.
 
Superfreak said:
"Wait a minute....you're saying that the University of Wisconsin, its researchers, it labs, its building, its infrastructure, its IT systems, its employee compensation packages, are not mostly paid by the State and with public support?"

Actually, UW's Research facilities WERE built by PRIVATE donations. Not by the state. That said, I think they did just get approval by the state for additional facilities and upgrades to existing facilities. Tuition pays for a good chunk of it as well and that is PRIVATE money, not public.
Click to expand...


S-freak: have you compared the tuition at univesity of Wisconsin, versus a private college? Tuition at state universities is so low, because education and research there is subsidized by the taxpayer
 
Well, I'm out for a while S-freak. Talk to you later.

I'd love to do an experiment where your state cut off all public funding for universitiy research, and basic science.

And my state continued to ramp up public investment in stem cell and other biotech research.

And in five years we could come back and see which state had a thriving biotech economy and a thriving research community.


:clink:
 
"S-freak: have you compared the tuition at univesity of Wisconsin, versus a private college? Tuition at state universities is so low, because education and research there is subsidized by the taxpayer"

Yes, I have compared. I went to Marquette which is an in state rival of UW. I know that I paid more for Marquette than I would have for UW.

That research is subsidized by the corporations paying for it as well.

I am not saying that research is not funded at all by the public side. As for the lack of funding slowing research.... a very common ploy by researchers to try to speed up funding
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top