You've actually touched on a fairly important issue in the manner in which science is funded. The fact of the matter is, hardly anyone (in the private sector) funds research. People fund things to make a profit. Funding research is inherently risky because researching takes an unknowable amount of time and the final output may or may not be financially viable. Fortunately, in this country, the government picks up the slack and funds research fairly well (or at least it did until the bush administration messed it all up).
In addition, most scientists prefer to work for public grant money because it provides more freedom. In the private sector, projects are normally decided by beuracrats or whoever happens to be in charge and are then handed out to whatever laboratories will take them. In the public sector, the scientist in charge of the laboratory (or one of his subordinates) drafts a grant proposal which outlines the hypothesis and the testing protocol. After a thorough editing process the grant is then submitted to the grant review board in washington. Depending on the quality of the grant proposal, the amount of money in the budget (which has been pitifully low as of late), and the amount of competition in the field, the grant is either rejected or accepted.
Obviously, most scientists prefer the public sector because they can choose to pursue projects that <i>they</i> think will work and that <i>they</i> find intellectually stimulating. They can hang out in the comfortable zone that is far enough removed from real life that their compassion can't skew experiments and remain safely outside of the political and financial beuracracy of the private sector.
So in summary, yes we should leave it to the scientists to decide proper treatments. Funding comes mostly from the government for two reasons: more money and fewer vested interests. If you want to worry about a lack of research in cancer treatment blame the iraq war. don't cry about pharmaceutical oligarchies blocking research or novel treatment methods. there certainly are issues with pharmaceuticals in this country, but for better or for worse they really don't invest in research.
I know this is kind of off on a tangent, but i think it's worth mentioning:
The truth about pharmeceuticals in this country is that they mooch their successes off the victories of others. I can't think of a single drug breakthrough in recent memory that was funded by pharmeceutical companies. Typically a drug is developed by scientists working in the public sector, and if and when it is demonstrated to be financially viable, it is bought up by pharmeceuticals to be sold for profit. In this way, the taxpayers shoulder the risk and expense of research (which is by no means trivial) and pharmeceutical companies cherry pick the successful ventures.
Hopefully some of this might change under Obama, but I personally doubt it.
reply
share