In the most recent study by the OECD, the U.S. comes in seventh when comparing the percent of GDP spent on R&D. Part of this disturbing showing is due to the cuts in government spending for basic research. In the 1960s the government spent two-thirds of each R&D dollar the nation spent; today it spends thirty cents. It's government money that is used to take large risks and sometimes it is necessary to take large risks. Further aggravating the situation is the move to outsource R&D; 40% of our high-tech research funded by industry is now performed in Asia and it's likely that that share will increase.
Reading about this latest OECD study comes a few days after reading of the effect of the budget problems on both NIH and FDA in Friday's Wall Street Journal. The NIH simply cannot fund as many scientist-initiated projects as they did previously. And, often, these projects have the biggest payoffs. On the other hand, the FDA is dependent for more than half of its drug review budget, i.e., more than half the money the FDA spends to review the safety of drugs comes from the companies who create the drugs. Could there possibly be some bias in the process?
Could we not use the $200,000,000+ spent on abstinence programs on trying to create a better world?
No comments:
Post a Comment