Funding Dinosaur Research

[Photon Guy]

I don't see any folder on this forum for paleontology so I thought this would be the best place on this forum to post this. Dinosaurs are fascinating but Im wondering how paleontologists get the funding to do their research. I don't really see much of a demand for such research so most research would not be consumer funded I take it, and to the best of my knowledge the government does not fund such research so Im wondering where the funding comes from. 

[sethoflagos]

A good dinosaur fossil can be a very valuable commercial property.

Plus palaeostratigraphy (the dating of rock samples by eg their fossil assemblage) is big business in mineral extraction etc. Maybe it's graptolites and conodonts rather than dinosaurs in that case, but the economy still needs a good reserve of trained paleontologists to identify them.

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

I don't see any folder on this forum for paleontology so I thought this would be the best place on this forum to post this. Dinosaurs are fascinating but Im wondering how paleontologists get the funding to do their research. I don't really see much of a demand for such research so most research would not be consumer funded I take it, and to the best of my knowledge the government does not fund such research so Im wondering where the funding comes from. 

The government, at least in the UK, does fund a certain amount of research done by organisations such as universities and the Natural History Museum. 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

I don't really see much of a demand for such research so most research would not be consumer funded I take it,

Private funding is only interested in researching areas of known investment returns, simply because it's too big a risk for the payoff in many cases, at least to the number crunchers. But that doesn't necessarily mean there's not much demand, only that the returns on their investments aren't big enough for the risks.

3 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

and to the best of my knowledge the government does not fund such research so Im wondering where the funding comes from. 

The government is exactly who funds mundane and obscure research. Museums are often publicly owned, and they fund the majority of "dinosaur research". The National Science Foundation is big in this area. Public funding is needed since we can't force private companies to do something that's not profitable, and this research has proven to be extremely necessary. If we didn't have places like the National Institute of Health to do obscure research, we'd only have the research big pharmaceutical companies wanted to do. 

It's like investments in space exploration. Lots of folks think it's a waste of money, but we learn startling things almost every time we attempt it. Paleontology is the same way. We fill the gaps in our knowledge a piece at a time, and not always to make a profit.

 

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Private funding is only interested in researching areas of known investment returns, simply because it's too big a risk for the payoff in many cases, at least to the number crunchers. But that doesn't necessarily mean there's not much demand, only that the returns on their investments aren't big enough for the risks.

There are “patrons of science” that fund museums and researchers. I recall funding of his paleontology digs being discussed in Johanson’s book “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis). The “return” they get is a successful dig and maybe a part of a museum named after them.

Others fund digs to get a share of the proceeds when the fossils are sold, like those who fund hunts for sunken treasure.

In the US the NSF funds research, but the amount for paleontology is a very small slice of their budget

[Photon Guy]

9 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

A good dinosaur fossil can be a very valuable commercial property.

Plus palaeostratigraphy (the dating of rock samples by eg their fossil assemblage) is big business in mineral extraction etc. Maybe it's graptolites and conodonts rather than dinosaurs in that case, but the economy still needs a good reserve of trained paleontologists to identify them.

Well by the same token I think a good moon rock or mars rock would be a very valuable commercial property yet we don't see much if any commercial demand for the space program. NASA is entirely government funded and we don't have any private space companies that go into space. If we can create a demand for paleontology with fossils perhaps we can create a demand for the space industry. The problem with something being government funded is that if we are to increase funding the only ways we can do that is if we were to cut back on other stuff that's government funded or by raising taxes, neither of those are popular choices. 

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Private funding is only interested in researching areas of known investment returns, simply because it's too big a risk for the payoff in many cases, at least to the number crunchers. But that doesn't necessarily mean there's not much demand, only that the returns on their investments aren't big enough for the risks.

The government is exactly who funds mundane and obscure research. Museums are often publicly owned, and they fund the majority of "dinosaur research". The National Science Foundation is big in this area. Public funding is needed since we can't force private companies to do something that's not profitable, and this research has proven to be extremely necessary. If we didn't have places like the National Institute of Health to do obscure research, we'd only have the research big pharmaceutical companies wanted to do. 

It's like investments in space exploration. Lots of folks think it's a waste of money, but we learn startling things almost every time we attempt it. Paleontology is the same way. We fill the gaps in our knowledge a piece at a time, and not always to make a profit.

 

But we make tons of progress in terms of bettering our lives with space exploration. All sorts of experiments are done in space and all sorts of really useful discoveries are being made, everything from medicine to communications to defense to transportation, you name it. With paleontology though it could be argued that there's not much we could learn from it since dinosaurs are extinct and have been for a long time, unless you want to argue in favor of just increasing our general knowledge in everything including dinosaurs but you still probably wouldn't get much government funding for it. You will most likely always get less government funding for paleontology than you will for NASA and NASA doesn't get a whole lot of funding as it is so I'm thinking that just like with space exploration, the study of dinosaurs works best if its done by private companies that make their profit from consumers. 

The question is, what can you get out of dinosaur research that you can provide to consumers that would have enough of a demand that they would pay good money for it? Museums come to mind, but you only make so much from running a museum. The only way I see to make a really good profit for paleontology is if we were to have something such as Jurassic Park where we have live dinosaurs, but as we know the Jurassic Park franchise is just movies and is pure fiction, as disappointing as that is. 

[exchemist]

14 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

Well by the same token I think a good moon rock or mars rock would be a very valuable commercial property yet we don't see much if any commercial demand for the space program. NASA is entirely government funded and we don't have any private space companies that go into space. If we can create a demand for paleontology with fossils perhaps we can create a demand for the space industry. The problem with something being government funded is that if we are to increase funding the only ways we can do that is if we were to cut back on other stuff that's government funded or by raising taxes, neither of those are popular choices. 

Have you not heard of Elon Musk’s Space X? https://www.spacex.com

[sethoflagos]

5 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

Well by the same token I think a good moon rock or mars rock would be a very valuable commercial property yet we don't see much if any commercial demand for the space program. NASA is entirely government funded and we don't have any private space companies that go into space. If we can create a demand for paleontology with fossils perhaps we can create a demand for the space industry. The problem with something being government funded is that if we are to increase funding the only ways we can do that is if we were to cut back on other stuff that's government funded or by raising taxes, neither of those are popular choices. 

I responded to your question about the funding of palaeontological studies in good faith only to discover that your OP was more of a vehicle to peddle conservative fiscal propaganda. Or at least take its dogmatic assumptions at face value. 

Okay then:

In general, private commercial enterprise requires a supply of well-educated young recruits (including palaeontologists and rocket scientists) but is too short-sighted and avaricious to fund public education themselves.

Relying on the population to fund their own individual education creates fundamentally unstable, self-perpetuating tiered societies where the majority are denied access to good education and the better-paid jobs that follow on from that due to lack of means.

Most of the more successful economies fund universal education programmes through progressive taxation policies leveraging preferentially on commercial profits and the wealthier sections of society to maximise the opportunities for all to realise their full potential.

This latter option carries the additional benefit that a better-educated majority is more likely to appreciate the fairness and political stability of such a system, and less likely to indulge in armed insurrection for example.

Of course, there are those who prefer the privileges they gain from less fair systems of wealth distribution. Funding for palaeontological studies for example is under constant pressure from religious fundamentalists for example as its findings tend to belie their underlying mythologies.

  

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

You will most likely always get less government funding for paleontology than you will for NASA and NASA doesn't get a whole lot of funding as it is so I'm thinking that just like with space exploration, the study of dinosaurs works best if its done by private companies that make their profit from consumers. 

Here's the thing about private ownership: it's all profit driven, and that's rarely the best basis for doing anything. Scientists can focus on the science involving paleontology and all the things it teaches us about ourselves, other animals, and how the world used to be. Private companies need that profit, and might well ignore certain avenues of research simply because they don't show profit potential (but might be incredibly useful as knowledge).

Right now in the US, the "powers that be (?)" seem to want us all afraid and frustrated because we consume more when we're stressed out. What would those folks want to do with information like Jane Goodall discovered, that the true signs of civilization in early humans was a healed femur, demonstrating that early humans cared enough for each other to take care of someone and feed them long enough for a bone to heal? I sincerely doubt information like this would be imparted by a private company dedicated to keeping us isolated, fearful, and desperate.

I also wholeheartedly disagree with the premise that space exploration "works best if it's done by private companies". The farce that is our outer space policy is going to end up making all the most horrible movie scenarios come true. Allowing private concerns to "compete" for all the resources available offplanet is cultural suicide imo, especially when we can't regulate even terrestrial greed with any degree of certainty. Why on Earth should we feel good about letting greed loose in NEO so it can trap some asteroids to first mine for metals and then send the debris streaking down upon our heads? Anyone who can develop successful manufacturing offplanet is going to write their own rules for humanity unless we write them first. Personally, I think we've let Musk and other private concerns do too much without enough oversight and compliance. At teh very least, we risk letting them paint their mistakes in our atmosphere to orbit with the debris for generations to come.

9 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

The question is, what can you get out of dinosaur research that you can provide to consumers that would have enough of a demand that they would pay good money for it?

Is that the question? I'm in my mid 60s, and I've seen capitalism ruin most of the best things in my life. I was lucky enough to prosper in a system that removed most of the public support along the way, but young people now have very little chance at that kind of prosperity, mostly because of this mentality of first figuring out how to make the most profit from something before assessing its real value to our society. 

And I think there is a huge contingent of Christian Nationalists who want archeology and paleontology to be a questionable practice. They don't believe in evolution, much less the theory behind it, and so they want to disparage the sciences at every opportunity. One of the best ways to discredit something is to point to the monetary motivations.

[Photon Guy]

10 hours ago, exchemist said:

Have you not heard of Elon Musk’s Space X? https://www.spacex.com

Yes and there's also Blue Origin by Jeff Bezos. Both Space X and Blue Origin mainly provides spacecraft to NASA though, which means its tax dollars that pay for their spacecraft. I've yet to hear about Space X or Blue Origin doing any space exploration of their own. 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Here's the thing about private ownership: it's all profit driven, and that's rarely the best basis for doing anything. Scientists can focus on the science involving paleontology and all the things it teaches us about ourselves, other animals, and how the world used to be. Private companies need that profit, and might well ignore certain avenues of research simply because they don't show profit potential (but might be incredibly useful as knowledge).

Right now in the US, the "powers that be (?)" seem to want us all afraid and frustrated because we consume more when we're stressed out. What would those folks want to do with information like Jane Goodall discovered, that the true signs of civilization in early humans was a healed femur, demonstrating that early humans cared enough for each other to take care of someone and feed them long enough for a bone to heal? I sincerely doubt information like this would be imparted by a private company dedicated to keeping us isolated, fearful, and desperate.

I also wholeheartedly disagree with the premise that space exploration "works best if it's done by private companies". The farce that is our outer space policy is going to end up making all the most horrible movie scenarios come true. Allowing private concerns to "compete" for all the resources available offplanet is cultural suicide imo, especially when we can't regulate even terrestrial greed with any degree of certainty. Why on Earth should we feel good about letting greed loose in NEO so it can trap some asteroids to first mine for metals and then send the debris streaking down upon our heads? Anyone who can develop successful manufacturing offplanet is going to write their own rules for humanity unless we write them first. Personally, I think we've let Musk and other private concerns do too much without enough oversight and compliance. At teh very least, we risk letting them paint their mistakes in our atmosphere to orbit with the debris for generations to come.

Greed might be a motivator but being greedy will work against you in the long run and a smart company will know that. Greed always ends up with you having less and we even have children's stories that teach that lesson. We also see that throughout history, just look at the automobile industry. Many people nowadays including myself prefer Japanese and German cars over American cars because they're made to last, unlike many American cars which are always breaking down and I speak from my own experience. In the late 90s I drove a Ford and it was complete junk. The problem is American car companies got greedy and just wanted to produce and sell as many cars as they could regardless of the quality. That's why I wouldn't a Ford today with a ten foot pole, and Im talking about a Ford made in this day and age not one made in the old days, 1970s and earlier, when Ford did make good vehicles. 

And like it or not space exploration is going in the direction of being privately funded. We've got companies such as Space X and Blue Origin. In the future going into space might be as simple as getting on a plane, or getting on a bus, or even getting in a car. In a future where spacecraft are as common and as readily available as automobiles I couldn't imagine the space industry not being run by private companies. 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Is that the question? I'm in my mid 60s, and I've seen capitalism ruin most of the best things in my life. I was lucky enough to prosper in a system that removed most of the public support along the way, but young people now have very little chance at that kind of prosperity, mostly because of this mentality of first figuring out how to make the most profit from something before assessing its real value to our society. 

And I think there is a huge contingent of Christian Nationalists who want archeology and paleontology to be a questionable practice. They don't believe in evolution, much less the theory behind it, and so they want to disparage the sciences at every opportunity. One of the best ways to discredit something is to point to the monetary motivations.

If people want to stop archaeology or paleontology or any kind of study because of religious reasons than that's an even stronger case for such studies to be taken on by private companies because if such studies are paid for entirely by government funding then those who are against such stuff will vote against it. And if you're concerned about monetary motivations well let's face it, researching costs money and that money has got to come from somewhere. If such research is entirely government funded and you want more funding you've got one of two options, either cut back on other stuff or raise taxes, take your pick. 

If you want to do the kind of research that the fictional John Hammond did, where are you going to get the funding?

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Photon Guy said:

I've yet to hear about Space X or Blue Origin doing any space exploration of their own. 

SpaceX is funding AstroForge, which is interested in asteroid mining. The plan is to buy the company up if it proves successful. Blue Origin is doing the same with Honeybee Robotics. I'm not linking to any of these companies since I think it's very dangerous having anyone out there who doesn't have our planet's overall best interests at heart. 

There are many efforts at trying to come up with protocols for working in space so we don't fuck it up like so many things we've commercialized, but it's difficult enough working with countries without having private groups throwing their need for more money into the mix.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Photon Guy said:

And like it or not space exploration is going in the direction of being privately funded. We've got companies such as Space X and Blue Origin. In the future going into space might be as simple as getting on a plane, or getting on a bus, or even getting in a car. In a future where spacecraft are as common and as readily available as automobiles I couldn't imagine the space industry not being run by private companies. 

It is really unlikely that spacecrafts are becoming commodities like cars. But assuming there is going to be commercialized space travel, it likely would require at least a higher level of regulation than current air flights. Research in the hands of companies is usually narrowly focused, and a really bad vehicle to gain insights (rather than profits). Companies rarely do any kind of explorative research as the cost/benefit ratio is not in their favour. Also, academic researchers have to demonstrate feasibility of their projects and whereas companies only need to sell the idea to investors. NASA would have not been able to burn through so many failed rockets as SpaceX which has implications on how to do things (for better or for worse). This becomes really problematic when it can impact things like environmental or human health, for example.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Photon Guy said:

Yes and there's also Blue Origin by Jeff Bezos. Both Space X and Blue Origin mainly provides spacecraft to NASA though, which means its tax dollars that pay for their spacecraft. I've yet to hear about Space X or Blue Origin doing any space exploration of their own. 

Greed might be a motivator but being greedy will work against you in the long run and a smart company will know that. Greed always ends up with you having less and we even have children's stories that teach that lesson. We also see that throughout history, just look at the automobile industry. Many people nowadays including myself prefer Japanese and German cars over American cars because they're made to last, unlike many American cars which are always breaking down and I speak from my own experience. In the late 90s I drove a Ford and it was complete junk. The problem is American car companies got greedy and just wanted to produce and sell as many cars as they could regardless of the quality. That's why I wouldn't a Ford today with a ten foot pole, and Im talking about a Ford made in this day and age not one made in the old days, 1970s and earlier, when Ford did make good vehicles. 

And like it or not space exploration is going in the direction of being privately funded. We've got companies such as Space X and Blue Origin. In the future going into space might be as simple as getting on a plane, or getting on a bus, or even getting in a car. In a future where spacecraft are as common and as readily available as automobiles I couldn't imagine the space industry not being run by private companies. 

If people want to stop archaeology or paleontology or any kind of study because of religious reasons than that's an even stronger case for such studies to be taken on by private companies because if such studies are paid for entirely by government funding then those who are against such stuff will vote against it. And if you're concerned about monetary motivations well let's face it, researching costs money and that money has got to come from somewhere. If such research is entirely government funded and you want more funding you've got one of two options, either cut back on other stuff or raise taxes, take your pick. 

If you want to do the kind of research that the fictional John Hammond did, where are you going to get the funding?

 

What about Starlink, then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink

 

But I’m now confused as to what you are arguing for. It’s clear that private enterprise can do a good job of research when there is an identifiable commercial goal. But it is equally clear that other, more fundamental,  types of research are also needed for science to progress. Governments have always realised this, which is why state-funded research programmes continue to be supported.

None of this is new.

Edited February 1 by exchemist

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What about Starlink, then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink

 

But I’m now confused as to what you are arguing for. It’s clear that private enterprise can do a good job of research when there is an identifiable commercial goal. But it is equally clear that other, more fundamental,  types of research are also needed for science to progress. Governments have always realised this, which is why state-funded research programmes continue to be supported.

None of this is new.

And not only that, it is known that public funded research stimulates private research. Estimates have shown that for each 1$ invested in public research, it stimulates around 0.5-2.5$ in private R&D. 

But perhaps more importantly, I would rather have a public fight regarding what to fund or not, rather than having a few ultra-rich folks determine it.

[Photon Guy]

45 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

SpaceX is funding AstroForge, which is interested in asteroid mining. The plan is to buy the company up if it proves successful. Blue Origin is doing the same with Honeybee Robotics. I'm not linking to any of these companies since I think it's very dangerous having anyone out there who doesn't have our planet's overall best interests at heart. 

It's also important to have the astronauts best interests at heart, something NASA has sadly failed at in the past. 

45 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

There are many efforts at trying to come up with protocols for working in space so we don't fuck it up like so many things we've commercialized, but it's difficult enough working with countries without having private groups throwing their need for more money into the mix.

But we are going in that direction, of having space commercialized just like it always happens when new avenues of exploration open up to us. It happened with sea travel and exploration of the new world, at first it was just explorers such as Columbus and Cortez that would go on long ocean voyages to explore, and then after the Americas were discovered and settled by the white man, sea travel became very much commercialized with so many people wanting to travel over there. No doubt that will happen with space as well. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Photon Guy said:

If people want to stop archaeology or paleontology or any kind of study because of religious reasons than that's an even stronger case for such studies to be taken on by private companies because if such studies are paid for entirely by government funding then those who are against such stuff will vote against it.

Another option available is neither private nor public. We could make this type of research state funded, based on a percentage of GDP, the direction of which is decided by a council focused on the science rather than the profit. Such a system wouldn't change depending on whoever is in office.

[Photon Guy]

22 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What about Starlink, then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink

 

But I’m now confused as to what you are arguing for. It’s clear that private enterprise can do a good job of research when there is an identifiable commercial goal. But it is equally clear that other, more fundamental,  types of research are also needed for science to progress. Governments have always realised this, which is why state-funded research programmes continue to be supported.

None of this is new.

Im arguing for stuff such as space research and dinosaur research to be not just government funded but also for companies to get involved with such stuff. Im not saying government funding should cease altogether but it does have its limitations that I've mentioned before. 

Maybe even space research and dinosaur research can be combined somehow, they could do science experiments on fossils in space. 

[Phi for All]

Just now, Photon Guy said:

It's also important to have the astronauts best interests at heart, something NASA has sadly failed at in the past.

I really object to this statement. I think it's narrow in vision, cherry-picks a few incidents while ignoring overall protocols, and also ignores all the redundant systems crafted and the success ratio in the harshest environment known. I think this statement sadly fails.

7 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

But we are going in that direction, of having space commercialized just like it always happens when new avenues of exploration open up to us. It happened with sea travel and exploration of the new world, at first it was just explorers such as Columbus and Cortez that would go on long ocean voyages to explore, and then after the Americas were discovered and settled by the white man, sea travel became very much commercialized with so many people wanting to travel over there. No doubt that will happen with space as well. 

I don't object to private companies, but I think the laws regulating them have eroded too badly in the last several decades, and space is something we need to be absolutely sure about. We can't afford to let Jeff Bezos complete the transformation into Lex Luthor without some stiff rules about human behavior and rights while off our home planet. 

[CharonY]

13 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

Im arguing for stuff such as space research and dinosaur research to be not just government funded but also for companies to get involved with such stuff.

If it does not generate profit, they won't do it. If it generates profit, then it will take precedence over insights. As such, companies are really not suited for explorative research, but they do well in the applied field. The insights will take a back seat every time (also addressing potential harms, because they want to the public to pay for that).

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Photon Guy said:

Well by the same token I think a good moon rock or mars rock would be a very valuable commercial property yet we don't see much if any commercial demand for the space program

If you’re going to discuss commerce you could at least do some rudimentary cost analysis.

“Usually, museums and research institutions spend about $10,000 for big excavations, which covers the cost for scientists to travel to the field and dig up fossils, as well as properly excavate and prepare them”

(it helps that you can get volunteers, or even people that pay for the privilege, to work on the digs) 

https://www.livescience.com/62745-dinosaur-auction-paleontologists-angry.html#:~:text=Usually%2C museums and research institutions,and prepare them%2C Polly said.

Even at ten times that, if you can find a million dollars in fossils, it’s quite profitable.

Now compare that with the cost of a trip to the moon. And consider whether the market would saturate and drive the value of a moon rock down if the focus was on hailing back moon rocks.

[Photon Guy]

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

It is really unlikely that spacecrafts are becoming commodities like cars.

In the distant future that could very well be a possibility. 

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

But assuming there is going to be commercialized space travel, it likely would require at least a higher level of regulation than current air flights.

True, just like a higher level of regulation was required when automobiles replaced horses and carriages, and when airplanes replaced trains and ships at sea, but we've made such adjustments before so we can do it again. 

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Research in the hands of companies is usually narrowly focused, and a really bad vehicle to gain insights (rather than profits). Companies rarely do any kind of explorative research as the cost/benefit ratio is not in their favour. Also, academic researchers have to demonstrate feasibility of their projects and whereas companies only need to sell the idea to investors.

From what I've seen in terms of technological advancements it appears companies do lots of research with the advancements they make. You see it with cars, computers, you name it. 

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

NASA would have not been able to burn through so many failed rockets as SpaceX which has implications on how to do things (for better or for worse). This becomes really problematic when it can impact things like environmental or human health, for example.

Burning through failed rockets,  provided they're unmanned, is how you learn from mistakes so you can make better rockets. Granted you shouldn't burn through rockets carelessly but every rocket launched, whether its failed or not, is an opportunity to learn and so the more such rockets you have to burn through the better. Otherwise you have disasters such as Challenger and Columbia, Columbia which happened twenty one years ago today. Imagine if such a disaster happened with SpaceX where people were killed, imagine how it would hurt SpaceX, as such SpaceX would be smart to avoid such stuff at all costs. Let's say there's a car company that produces cars with faulty breaks and it leads to people being killed. Would you buy a car from that company? I sure wouldn't. I've seen it happen with other companies, where their products have turned out to be dangerous, how its hurt the companies. 

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

But perhaps more importantly, I would rather have a public fight regarding what to fund or not, rather than having a few ultra-rich folks determine it.

That's why I would want multiple companies not just a few. I would much prefer a monopolistic competition over an oligopoly. Perfect competition would be ideal but that's a pipe dream. 

30 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Another option available is neither private nor public. We could make this type of research state funded, based on a percentage of GDP, the direction of which is decided by a council focused on the science rather than the profit. Such a system wouldn't change depending on whoever is in office.

State funded still means it's funded by tax dollars so to get more funding that would mean cutting back on other stuff or raising taxes. 

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I really object to this statement. I think it's narrow in vision, cherry-picks a few incidents while ignoring overall protocols, and also ignores all the redundant systems crafted and the success ratio in the harshest environment known. I think this statement sadly fails.

You do know that both Challenger and Columbia were avoidable, don't you? Especially Challenger. But in both cases NASA knew of the danger and ignored it. 

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If it does not generate profit, they won't do it. If it generates profit, then it will take precedence over insights. As such, companies are really not suited for explorative research, but they do well in the applied field. The insights will take a back seat every time (also addressing potential harms, because they want to the public to pay for that).

But in the past explorative research has been done by companies or by private individuals, the expansion of the USA for instance. 

[CharonY]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you’re going to discuss commerce you could at least do some rudimentary cost analysis.

“Usually, museums and research institutions spend about $10,000 for big excavations, which covers the cost for scientists to travel to the field and dig up fossils, as well as properly excavate and prepare them”

(it helps that you can get volunteers, or even people that pay for the privilege, to work on the digs) 

https://www.livescience.com/62745-dinosaur-auction-paleontologists-angry.html#:~:text=Usually%2C museums and research institutions,and prepare them%2C Polly said.

Even at ten times that, if you can find a million dollars in fossils, it’s quite profitable.

Now compare that with the cost of a trip to the moon. And consider whether the market would saturate and drive the value of a moon rock down if the focus was on hailing back moon rocks.

I am surprised as it sound fairly low. Travel and accommodations alone would eat a fair chunk of it. Heck, I pay as much if I need get a tech in to do repairs that I cannot do myself.

20 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

From what I've seen in terms of technological advancements it appears companies do lots of research with the advancements they make. You see it with cars, computers, you name it. 

Not really, the do applied research and especially development. But most fundamental developments are either academic or spun of from there. It is not that they no innovative role, but it is fairly rare that they fundamental research and it has become rarer over time. In the 50s there was quite a bit of overlap, but that has mostly vanished.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I am surprised as it sound fairly low. Travel and accommodations alone would eat a fair chunk of it. Heck, I pay as much if I need get a tech in to do repairs that I cannot do myself.

Not really, the do applied research and especially development. But most fundamental developments are either academic or spun of from there. It is not that they no innovative role, but it is fairly rare that they fundamental research and it has become rarer over time. In the 50s there was quite a bit of overlap, but that has mostly vanished.

One of the most common defences by Big Pharma for price gouging is that it will affect innovation. Not much of a leg to stand on, it seems to me. People on your level should be more vocal and tell them to stop misleading the public and naive politicians.

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

One of the most common defences by Big Pharma for price gouging is that it will affect innovation. Not much of a leg to stand on, it seems to me. People on your level should be more vocal and tell them to stop misleading the public and naive politicians.

Well, for starters we cannot afford lobbyists. One should perhaps also note that price gouging is a bigger issue in the US where prices are mostly unregulated. There are studies out there showing that while the US spends more on prescription drugs, but relative to spending does not provide more development than other countries. Some countries with strong pharmaceutical companies (UK, Switzerland) are more productive in that regard. And I do think that lawmakers and companies are well aware of that. 

[exchemist]

31 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

One of the most common defences by Big Pharma for price gouging is that it will affect innovation. Not much of a leg to stand on, it seems to me. People on your level should be more vocal and tell them to stop misleading the public and naive politicians.

I think Big Pharma will be speaking of innovation in the sense of product development rather than ab initio research. Product development is extremely costly  - and high risk.  

Edited February 1 by exchemist