I'm not suggesting that this is the case here without further evidence, but such grants DO have a place: developments with such funding, properly administered, cannot be patented and held as secret by the participant companies.

If the research is worth it, the business should pay for all of it. I could understand if company could not profit from research but would do it for money. But I would make the caveat that the research is open to the public and/or government retains patent control.

I find it a waste of money if research is paid for, then companies gets to keep the work and benefits fully.

I am of two minds about this. At least the money went to a party that is likely going to do the research, rather then some government body that will use the money, dick around for a while, then give inconclusive research and say more money is needed next year.

If it was worth doing, it would be worth doing without a subsidy - unless we're paying GM's utility bill also.

Pardon me for thinking that both political parties are taking money from GM and their unions. This award is a kickback for a bribe. It's legal, because the guys who write the laws make it so.

unless we're paying GM's utility bill also

This GM is a zombified version that should be properly referred to as Government Motors. So yes, we are paying for their utilities.

There are some areas that I think government might have good reason to support R&D. Those are mostly in defense/intelligence (because of security, and a company could sell the same technology to another country).

I'm also inclined to think that certain health areas might warrant government support. I'm thinking about highly infectious disease treatment/vaccination. Some of that research is uber-expensive, but would certainly serve the whole population. (Note, this doesn't include things that are NOT contagious). This wouldn't be as effective at the state level, and contagious illnesses pass state boundaries easily, which is why I'd put it up to the feds.

For instance, I think it's been a boon to our country that we can vaccinate against polio, measles, mumps, and a variety of other diseases that used to cause tons of illness and death (but which are so uncommon now that I only know about because my folks explained it to me). I don't even know what polio DOES, but I know I'm glad I don't have to deal with it!

In that light, I would argue for government supporting R&D toward dealing with highly antibiotic-resistant bacteria and similar infectious agents. I would go so far as to say that I don't mind a company profiting off it, but I think the government (as representative of the citizenry) should "own" the copyright. Other medical companies could pay for access (a modest fee), but it wouldn't be available to foreign entities (let them buy our USA-made vaccines) except perhaps by treaty.

Crony Capitalism at its very worst. :-(

"I'm also inclined to think that certain health areas might warrant government support. I'm thinking about highly infectious disease treatment/vaccination... I would argue for government supporting R&D toward dealing with highly antibiotic-resistant bacteria and similar infectious agents." - Shannon M Howell

It's not needed. I've worked on hundreds of clinical research studies completely paid for by private, for-profit companies and investors, big and small, working to develop new vaccines, antibiotics and other medicines. It is a lucrative industry that has no lack of private investment, and does not need any government money or the bureaucratic control that goes with it. The less government involvement there is, the more activity and progress, and the less corruption there is.

Ken,

Good point. If it's not needed, that's great. I would prefer it to be done privately.

However, I maintain that this research (along with intelligence technology, weapons tech, etc.) would be a national-level investment that would be (overall) beneficial to the citizenry. There would be a few advantages to doing it under government auspices. I don't deny, there would also be disadvantages (having too many cooks in the kitchen, and it would probably cost more).

I think that it is important for us (the citizens & taxpayers) to THINK about what the government should and should not do (and what it can and can not do, legally).

If private industry decided that it didn't want to support this R&D, I would see value in the government stepping in. As it is, I'm glad they are not needed. Given that, they should step OUT.

Shout "crony capitalism!" and one set of knees jerk.
Shout "national security!" and another set of knees jerk.
Decisions, decisions: which play puts more dividends in my pocket?

If private industry decided that it didn't want to support this R&D, I would see value in the government stepping in. As it is, I'm glad they are not needed. Given that, they should step OUT. -- Shannon M. Howell at June 14, 2012 4:28 AM

The best way to figure out what the government needs to do is grab a copy of the yellow pages. Look at the listings. If you see someone doing t as a private company the government should not be doing it. Even the government regulating it should be questioned.

That includes education, health care, insurance, waste management, food, autos. If there is a need for it, some bright entrepreneur will either create it or the public will ask for it, and some bright entrepreneur will produce it.

We don't need a nanny.

Jim P,

While I generally agree with you, I think you might be over-generalizing a bit. Yes, MOST functions can and should be done in the private sector. But, that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING should be done in the private sector. For instance, I prefer government to run the police, judiciary, immigration, negotiations with other countries, a good chunk of military R&D (classified stuff), and national intelligence (don't laugh).

I also think that it is ok for government to be in education... PROVIDED it is at the LOCAL level. For example, if Kentucky wants to mandate that all Kentucky schools have to teach Kentucky history, that is up to the state (as defined by "We the people" of Kentucky). They can vote it (or not). Similarly if XYZ County school district wants to mandate that multiplication tables be taught in 3rd grade, that's their choice. In that sense, I put that equal with local zoning decisions etc. Not to say I wouldn't mind if education was entirely private sector... but that's another thought all together.

Private companies can do a lot of the things I've mentioned, but not all of this should be at the individual/corporate level (imagine completely privatized police - the CEO would effectively be above the law).

I do believe we are over-governmented and over-regulated. I just think most of what is done at the federal level is stuff that states and municipalities should be doing (or not) as they choose.