Why are science programs better off led by for-profit companies instead of the government or non-profit organizations other than the shekel factor? Or is this statement total bullcock?
Why are science programs better off led by for-profit companies instead of the government or non-profit organizations...
Brayden Edwards
Camden Collins
Money.
Eli Cox
Depends entirely on whether the politicians or businessmen have the higher level of impatience (read: tendency to discount long-term costs in exchange for chasing short-term rewards). Could go either way.
This assumes a working definition of "doing science" as making investments with the goal of validating time-invariant facts about the world/universe.
Carson Barnes
here's how research works in modern academia
>corporate guys stumble upon something through educated guesswork, monkeys-at-a-typewriter tier trial and error, or dumb luck
>send their findings to a university along with a wad of dough to have the eggheads there formalize the discovery
>kick back a report/study/whatever
>profit
David Bennett
shekel factor
Jace Jackson
wrong
Xavier Gutierrez
do I need to sell meth in order to get funding for wet wiring research
Levi Smith
>The Art Of The Deal
Shouldn't "of" and "the" be in lower case?
Josiah Myers
Supposedly "private companies" are more efficient because they have an incentive to cut waste.
Of course this comes at a cost. They'll cut as much as they can to preserve their profits. And you have all the problems that come with arrogant, "smart" businessmen managing the real innovators.
Kevin Adams
>insinuating that donald trump won't be a good president
alright kiddo :^)