If the NIH was funded by donors, what you're saying would make sense. It's not though- its funded by taxes. Think about this from a middle class perspective. These scientists are elites with fancy titles, extremely high salaries often in the 6 figures, and frequently are protected from changes in the labour market. Furthermore they're usually democrats and ideologically opposed to your lifestyle and culture. Why should this family support a single cent of their tax money going to bug sex research? If it was a voluntary donation, fine. But it's not, so Johnny's Christmas is slightly worse so Madame Scientist at the NIH can afford her Chanel.
As I noted in the post, model organism studies are how we got Ozempic, which will extend and improve the quality of life for millions of Americans; or the mRNA vaccine that has already saved millions of lives. In simple dollars, NIH investments provide a significant return: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/research/report-every-dollar-nih-research-funding-doubles-economic-returns . It is also worth noting that NIH grants do not go to Madam Scientist to purchase Chanel, they go to her institution to purchase reagents and equipment.
You can't expect someone who is already skeptical of scientific institutions to believe scientists when they claim their funding is worth it. Of course they are going to say that! Everyone wants to be paid more. What you're pitching is great for donors but terrible for taxpayers. Remember, taxes are taken by force not voluntarily. You can expect proscience donors to take your arguments seriously. But you cannot expect all taxpayers to take it seriously, especially when scientists are clearly aligned with one political party.
Even if your arguments were solid, they would not work on a large subset of voters. But your arguments aren't that solid. Government taxes and subsidies cause market inefficiencies, so any benefits of a policy must outweigh those costs. What about other treatments that might have been discovered if scientists were allocated more efficiently using market forces? It's quite possible that the rate of medical discovery might be quite a lot higher if the primary motive force was profit rather than paper citations. And for Ozempic, what if pharmaceutical companies underfund basic research because they can rely on government subsidies for it? Its quite possible that Ozempic might have been discovered years earlier. And don't forget about income taxes! They encourage leisure at the expense of labour, and on the margins encourage lower investments into human capital since labour catches a smaller portion of the proceeds. You can't just pitch the upside without the downside.
I don't think anyone really knows what "works on" voters and it is not my primary goal to do voter advocacy. My goal is to explain how things work based on scientific evidence, and then people can integrate that into their other views and beliefs as they see fit. The evidence is that the NIH generates $2 for every $1 it spends. If you have a machine that turns $1 into $2, you should probably not dismantle that machine unless you know for sure that the replacement will turn $1 into >$2. I do not find the arguments you've presented particularly persuasive on that end. Pharmaceutical development, in particular, is an area with tremendous first discovery advantages so there is no reason to think that drug companies are intentionally waiting on the sidelines while the NIH funds research work for them (in fact, drug companies have massive pre-clinical arms). What is more plausible is that long-term basic science research is not profitable for most individual investors, who work on 5-10 year timelines, but is critical to breakthroughs like Ozempic and Moderna. Not to mention public resources like the Human Genome Project. I think the burden of proof for dismantling our $1 -> $2 machine is higher than just speculation.
1) The report you site is by UMR, which describes itself as "UMR is a coalition of leading research institutions, patient and health advocates and private industry seeking strong and
sustainable increases in funding for the National Institutes of Health". Its literallt an advocacy group trying to get more taxpayer money for their memmembers. They don't provide any details on how they came up with those numbers, but it appears to be based on jobs created which is deceptive- every economic creates extetnal jobs, and taxes reduce external jobs; so they are only presenting the job creation from spending without removing the job losses from taxation
2) As soon as you advocate for taxpayer funding you must understand you are advocating for the use of force. That's ok, but you need to own it, meaning you need to demonstrate that the violation of property rights plus the economic externalities of taxes outweighs the benefits from spending. That's an extremely difficult case to make, because markets tend to be extremely efficient. So in the case of government subsidies reducing market investment in basic research, there's a substantial burden of proof to be met because there are lots of ways that firms do projects on multi decade timelines and ways that markets find to internalize externalities. You need to show not only that the market doesn't already do those things, but that it is impossible - because if it is possible, entrepreneurs can use your research to solve the problem more efficiently than subsidies.
I do not believe tax collection is a violation of property rights and nor do the majority of Americans. We can switch to your frame once it moves beyond the fringes. In the mean time, I'll reiterate that the evidence shows we have a machine that turns $1 into $2 and we probably shouldn't get rid of that machine unless we know for sure the replacement will turn $1 into >$2.
I'll reiterate that UMR has a conflict of interest, does not include the negative externalities of subsidies or taxes on their $2.4 estimate, and they don't explain their methodology. So you haven't in fact shown what you are saying.
If the NIH was funded by donors, what you're saying would make sense. It's not though- its funded by taxes. Think about this from a middle class perspective. These scientists are elites with fancy titles, extremely high salaries often in the 6 figures, and frequently are protected from changes in the labour market. Furthermore they're usually democrats and ideologically opposed to your lifestyle and culture. Why should this family support a single cent of their tax money going to bug sex research? If it was a voluntary donation, fine. But it's not, so Johnny's Christmas is slightly worse so Madame Scientist at the NIH can afford her Chanel.
As I noted in the post, model organism studies are how we got Ozempic, which will extend and improve the quality of life for millions of Americans; or the mRNA vaccine that has already saved millions of lives. In simple dollars, NIH investments provide a significant return: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/research/report-every-dollar-nih-research-funding-doubles-economic-returns . It is also worth noting that NIH grants do not go to Madam Scientist to purchase Chanel, they go to her institution to purchase reagents and equipment.
You can't expect someone who is already skeptical of scientific institutions to believe scientists when they claim their funding is worth it. Of course they are going to say that! Everyone wants to be paid more. What you're pitching is great for donors but terrible for taxpayers. Remember, taxes are taken by force not voluntarily. You can expect proscience donors to take your arguments seriously. But you cannot expect all taxpayers to take it seriously, especially when scientists are clearly aligned with one political party.
Even if your arguments were solid, they would not work on a large subset of voters. But your arguments aren't that solid. Government taxes and subsidies cause market inefficiencies, so any benefits of a policy must outweigh those costs. What about other treatments that might have been discovered if scientists were allocated more efficiently using market forces? It's quite possible that the rate of medical discovery might be quite a lot higher if the primary motive force was profit rather than paper citations. And for Ozempic, what if pharmaceutical companies underfund basic research because they can rely on government subsidies for it? Its quite possible that Ozempic might have been discovered years earlier. And don't forget about income taxes! They encourage leisure at the expense of labour, and on the margins encourage lower investments into human capital since labour catches a smaller portion of the proceeds. You can't just pitch the upside without the downside.
I don't think anyone really knows what "works on" voters and it is not my primary goal to do voter advocacy. My goal is to explain how things work based on scientific evidence, and then people can integrate that into their other views and beliefs as they see fit. The evidence is that the NIH generates $2 for every $1 it spends. If you have a machine that turns $1 into $2, you should probably not dismantle that machine unless you know for sure that the replacement will turn $1 into >$2. I do not find the arguments you've presented particularly persuasive on that end. Pharmaceutical development, in particular, is an area with tremendous first discovery advantages so there is no reason to think that drug companies are intentionally waiting on the sidelines while the NIH funds research work for them (in fact, drug companies have massive pre-clinical arms). What is more plausible is that long-term basic science research is not profitable for most individual investors, who work on 5-10 year timelines, but is critical to breakthroughs like Ozempic and Moderna. Not to mention public resources like the Human Genome Project. I think the burden of proof for dismantling our $1 -> $2 machine is higher than just speculation.
Just a couple of things:
1) The report you site is by UMR, which describes itself as "UMR is a coalition of leading research institutions, patient and health advocates and private industry seeking strong and
sustainable increases in funding for the National Institutes of Health". Its literallt an advocacy group trying to get more taxpayer money for their memmembers. They don't provide any details on how they came up with those numbers, but it appears to be based on jobs created which is deceptive- every economic creates extetnal jobs, and taxes reduce external jobs; so they are only presenting the job creation from spending without removing the job losses from taxation
2) As soon as you advocate for taxpayer funding you must understand you are advocating for the use of force. That's ok, but you need to own it, meaning you need to demonstrate that the violation of property rights plus the economic externalities of taxes outweighs the benefits from spending. That's an extremely difficult case to make, because markets tend to be extremely efficient. So in the case of government subsidies reducing market investment in basic research, there's a substantial burden of proof to be met because there are lots of ways that firms do projects on multi decade timelines and ways that markets find to internalize externalities. You need to show not only that the market doesn't already do those things, but that it is impossible - because if it is possible, entrepreneurs can use your research to solve the problem more efficiently than subsidies.
I do not believe tax collection is a violation of property rights and nor do the majority of Americans. We can switch to your frame once it moves beyond the fringes. In the mean time, I'll reiterate that the evidence shows we have a machine that turns $1 into $2 and we probably shouldn't get rid of that machine unless we know for sure the replacement will turn $1 into >$2.
I'll reiterate that UMR has a conflict of interest, does not include the negative externalities of subsidies or taxes on their $2.4 estimate, and they don't explain their methodology. So you haven't in fact shown what you are saying.