"David Snedeker" wrote in
:

Yep, just leave it to the corp sector, because they are just soooooo
responsible.

No, you can leave it to the corp sector because there's ****loads of
money going to whoever gets it right first. That's primo motivation for
that sector.


Fact is that most medical and basic bio research has been done by the
public
sector, and ripped off via joke licensing fees by the private sector.
And

That's only when the private sector can't get around paying anything at
all

now the Bushies have been quietly hollowing out the NIH research
structure.

NIH budgets have not been cut during Bush yet, but they haven't gone up
substantially, either. In fact, grant pay lines (the percentage of
submitted grants actually getting funded) are starting to go down
significantly.

There is a move on at NIH to promote what's known as "translational"
research, which means that impact on health considerations needs to be
demonstrated. In fact, the language for NIH review criteria was changed
earlier this week. This might dampen basic research, unless basic
researchers take a "find the application" mindset.

Now, so far as drug and gene therapy development, the public sector is
not the ivory tower it once was. Many investigators are incorporating,
forming various business relationships with drug companies and their
universities. While not many want to talk about it, the potential for
huge conflicts of interest are cropping up in academic circles, where
such concerns used to be least likely to arise. Issues can get complex.
For example, the government pays for the research that can make the
investigators and the university a fortune-- Where's the government's
cut? An investigator funded by a drug company for a class II study hits
a negative finding that will impact the financial state of the drug
company--the investigators bread and butter. What does the investigator
do?

Scott