[ RadSafe ] political funding of science/ was:Radon:POWERFULLY associated with LESS lung cancer by B.Cohen

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

And venture capitalists are welcome to the fruits of their investments.
But there are projects too big for them, such as the Space Program (yes,
I know there are now private companies trying to, and even succeeding in
getting packages into space.  But do you think the would be there if it
weren't for the knowledge and infrastructure paid for by the US
taxpayers (whose return on investment has been huge)).  Also, venture
capitalists tend to want to keep the secrets their money helped uncover
secret.  The chance for spin-offs is much less.  

More often than not, private money supports research into technology.
Often technology made possible by research into science paid for by
public money.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Riely
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 12:14 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] political funding of science/
was:Radon:POWERFULLY associated with LESS lung cancer by B.Cohen

Real science creates a lot of wealth and a lot of the wealth that it
creates
is obvious.  The problem is that you do not know before hand which
science
will produce the wealth.  That is why Venture Capitalist create a
portfolio
with the assumption that the one success story will pay for the other 9
failures.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan, Mike
(DOH)
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 2:11 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] political funding of science/ was:Radon:
POWERFULLY
associated with LESS lung cancer by B.Cohen

Hi, Steve.

I don't actually agree with, " Real science doesn't create wealth it
only consumes it,..."  I believe science creates vast amounts of wealth,
but does so in indirect ways that often cannot be predicted before the
science is done.

Basic research has found things that created entire new fields of wealth
creation.  Often this has happened while looking into some mystery that
had no obvious payoff for solving.  Because the payoff isn't obvious,
getting financial backing can be hard.  Government funding for basic
research has paid off in creating whole new industries, with wealth
creation that is hard to wrap you mind around (imagine, for example,
what GPS is worth.  Not just the units that you hold, but the value of
being able to locate things and people almost instantly, almost
anywhere.  If the US Government hadn't paid for the research on how to
make it work, and then paid for the system to be deployed, it wouldn't
have happened, because no company could predict what the pay off would
be).

Also, most money spent on research actually goes to people, with a fair
portion of that going to grants that let people get advanced degrees.
Those people then go out to industry, bringing new knowledge and
understanding.  Very, very few businesses are willing to take the risk
of investing in an individual's education, even if they know that at
some time they will want someone with that expertise.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Clayton J
Bradt
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:39 AM
To: sjd at swcp.com; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] political funding of science/ was:Radon: POWERFULLY
associated with LESS lung cancer by B.Cohen

Steve Dapra writes:


"The problem is that politics funds science, thus transmuting 
science into a political football.  Real science can raise its own 
funding.  It does not need to leech off the taxpayer."