Re: Bureaucracies, genomes & vaccines (was: Sex drives...)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Robert J. Bradbury

I wouldn't be too surprised to see GM promoting bicycle use outside of their sales area, heh heh... there could be a few advantages to such things for big businesses after all...

• "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
  > > Bureaucracies virtually never produce anything
  > useful.
  >
  > How wrong you are 'o libertarian one! :-)
  >
  > I will simply cite the history of the human genome
  > project.
  > When the HGP was started (circa 1985), nobody
  > thought it
  > was possible. So picking a number out of a hat,
  > they picked
  > 2005 as a reasonable completion date.
  >
  > For about 5 years nothing happened because the
  > technology did
  > not exist to do it. In the early 1990's they
  > decided that
  > substantial progress needed to be made in the
  > underlying
  > technologies, so NIH funded a series of development
  > projects.
  > That lead to 3-5 labs developing the basic
  > improvements and
  > prototypes of the capillary sequencing apparatus
  > that are
  > now being sold by Molecular Dynamics and Perkin
  > Elmer/
  > Applied Biosystems. [A clear case of government
  > funded
  > technologies migrating to industrial production.]
  >
  > When it became clear (after ~5-7 years of R&D), what
  > the
  > capacities of the machines were, the government
  > revised
  > its completion target date to 2003.
  >
  > Perkin Elmer decided that its machines could provide
  > an
  > interesting business oportunity to get into the
  > health
  > care business (a growth industry) and together with
  > Craig Venter (from Human Genome Sciences & The
  > Institute
  > for Genomic Research -- the people who sequenced the
  > first
  > bacterial genomes), founded Celera and said that
  > they would
  > sequence the genome by 2001.
  >
  > The government "bureaucracy", non-plused by such
  > brashness
  > (and the concern that a private company might patent
  > key
  > portions of the human genome), accelerated its time
  > table,
  > and has issued contracts to the most productive labs
  > currently
  > in operation to get 90% of the genome done by next
  > year!
  >
  > So, what was to have been a ~20 year, $2-3 billion
  > dollar
  > project is coming in ahead of schedule and under
  > budget.
  >
  > I will allow that industry competition has helped
  > the
  > schedule along, but it took some highly motivated
  > and
  > visionary individuals (Dr. Watson being a key
  > player)
  > saying something is possible and desirable,
  > convincing
  > the government "bureaucracy" to make a long term
  > commitment to a project whose feasibility and
  > results
  > were substantially doubtable to produce a result
  > which will be critical for your long term health
  > and well-being!
  >
  > Government bureaucracies *do work*, in situations
  > where
  > the economic justifications for projects cannot be
  > made in industry (who have to watch the bottom
  > line).
  > Given that situation, you have to allow for a higher
  > failure rate among the things that government
  > bureaucracies
  > attempt. This is why the congressional criticisms
  > of
  > "stupid" or "failed" projects can be
  > counterproductive
  > in the long term. If it were an "assured success" a
  > business
  > would have done it before the government even
  > thought
  > about doing it.
  >
  > I would add that much of the Web as we know it today
  > would not exist (or would have been significantly
  > delayed),
  > if DARPA (a government agency) hadn't funded the
  > development
  > of the TCP/IP protocols back in the '60s. We also
  > probably wouldn't have the fast computers as fast as
  > those currently on your desk have if NASA hadn't
  > pushed for
  > miniaturization and integrated circuits in the race
  > to the moon.
  >
  > We certainly wouldn't have solar cells, that if
  > prices continue
  > to decline, you should be able to install in for
  > your own
  > home power system within 10 years, freeing yourself
  > from the
  > local electrical monopoly, if the government had not
  > for
  > may years funded their R&D.
  >
  > Yes, 'o Libertarian-Wan, governments & bureaucracies
  > are universally bad...
  >
  > The solution to the DMV problem is to introduce
  > competition.
  > [I assume that brothels will be in competition with
  > each
  > other so they would never end up looking like the
  > DMV. :-)]
  >
  > Now, switching tracks entirely, industry and/or
  > competition is
  > not a universal good!
  >
  > In a highly competitive environment, you cannot make
  > the
  > investments necessary for long term R&D projects.
  > You *also*
  > generally *do not* undertake projects that will
  > result in
  > the elimination of your market. What Razor/razor
  > blade
  > manufacturing company would undertake a project for
  > research into creams that permanently prevent hair
  > growth?
  > Only if a competitor appears to be on the verge of
  > developing
  > such a breakthrough would a company be forced to
  > pursue
  > this type of development. I've seen some
  > interesting
  > documentaries on PBS about how GM methodically went
  > about
  > buying up and shutting down public transportation
  > systems
  > to increase the market for automobiles. A collective
  > of
  > companies will act in their own self-interest to
  > promote
  > the sales of their products. You will not see
  > GM/Ford/Crysler
  > act in a way to promote bicycles (or mass-transit)!
  >
  > A case in point would be the pharmaceutical industry
  > and
  > vaccines. What pharmaceutical company is going to
  > develop
  > a one-time vaccine, when they could instead devote
  > their
  > resources to a multiple-use drug? Most vaccines
  > have
  > been developed either by government "bureaucracies"
  > or by contracts that the government made with
  > industry
  > or by non-profit organizations.
  >
  > On the other hand, I suspect you as a consumer would
  > generally prefer a one-time polio shot as an infant
  > to many years spent in an iron-lung that used to
  > be sold on a per-patient basis!
  >
  > An industry will not generally act in a way so as to
  > eliminate its markets, on the other hand a
  > government
  > can act in the collective interest of its citizens.
  >
  > The fundamental question then becomes what are these
  > "collective interests"?!?
  >
  > > (preserving wetlands and endangered species, for
  > example),
  >
  > Aha, well here we come to the crux of the problem.
  >
  > As a home buyer with an interest in affordable
  > housing,
  > you would like to see land inexpensively developed.
  > As a contractor intested in profits, you would
  > prefer
  > to have more land available and fewer environmental
  >
  === message truncated ===

  ---

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Robert J. Bradbury