TRUTH about US R&D SPENDING from BRITISH NATURE
patrick at corona.med.utah.edu
Sun Apr 28 14:06:57 EST 1996
On 27 Apr 1996, Gregory R. Harriman wrote:
> of more than one Nobel Prize, if he were living today he would not be able
> to do state of the art science in physics, electromagnetism or whatever
> with equipment from the distant past. For example, if he wanted to do
> applied research on high energy physics he would have to have access to
> expensive particle accelerators. Likewise in biomedical science, state of
> the art research requires use of expensive equipment and reagents. If
> you're going to argue against the present day high costs of scientific
> research, try using a more valid analogy.
Add to the cost of equipment and so forth the cost and necessity to
obtain a high level of education, which itself is expensive. One simply
doesn't go out and do "stuff" on a particle accelerator, or run "stuff"
through an HPLC. With a firehose rate of information being produced
and published all the time, the amount of information that needs to be
covered simply in preparation of any study grows every day.
What Faraday or Pasteur knew in toto back when is less than primary school
children are given passing treatment of today. Having fancy computers
doens't mean that my father, with education in this direction, could
design a jet, run a complex quantum physics experiment, or analyze an
enzyme. To do any of this stuff today requires a great deal of
education, not only of the basics of what you want to do, but on how to
do it with the equipment.
More information about the Bioforum