the value of research
please forgive the blogging-hiatus...i've been building a 2 photon microscope (nod to alex mcdonald for the wikipedia article) and prepping for a 180-mile desert race. but alas, the news just don't stop:
a new study on the economics of life-improving and life-extending medicines demonstrates the value associated with research aimed at these ends. as a mind-boggling example, the economists claim a cure for cancer would be worth $50 trillion (i know what i'm doing this weekend)! this kind of study is timely as the bush administration considers huge cuts in life sciences research in favor of physics research more applicable to its war machine. in principle, though, it's important for biomedical researchers to be reminded of the sense of urgency in their work: people die daily from diseases whose cures are around the corner.
as a reminder, though, biological science has two primary goals: to address human medical issues (dubbed "biomedical research", "medical research", "applied biology", etc) and to reveal the way carbon systems work (often called "basic biology"). fortunately, these two often go hand in hand. but it's my conviction that the latter is worth studying independent of the former, and i spend most of my time thinking about basic neuroscience. so, to be clear, this economics work applies to basic biology research only to the extent that such research informs and brings about advances in biomedical research (and eventually a valued end product).
a new study on the economics of life-improving and life-extending medicines demonstrates the value associated with research aimed at these ends. as a mind-boggling example, the economists claim a cure for cancer would be worth $50 trillion (i know what i'm doing this weekend)! this kind of study is timely as the bush administration considers huge cuts in life sciences research in favor of physics research more applicable to its war machine. in principle, though, it's important for biomedical researchers to be reminded of the sense of urgency in their work: people die daily from diseases whose cures are around the corner.
as a reminder, though, biological science has two primary goals: to address human medical issues (dubbed "biomedical research", "medical research", "applied biology", etc) and to reveal the way carbon systems work (often called "basic biology"). fortunately, these two often go hand in hand. but it's my conviction that the latter is worth studying independent of the former, and i spend most of my time thinking about basic neuroscience. so, to be clear, this economics work applies to basic biology research only to the extent that such research informs and brings about advances in biomedical research (and eventually a valued end product).
posted by dave at 7:49 PM
1 Comments:
"in principle, though, it's important for biomedical researchers to be reminded of the sense of urgency in their work: people die daily from diseases whose cures are around the corner."
I really like that statement and its something I think about a lot.. You're right about too much money being fueled into war and weaponry, but how do you feel about other horrible uses of money that we civilians can really have control over? Like the hideous 2.7 million dollar hat? (http://usemycomputer.com/indeximages/2004/June/acress.alicia.witt.modeling.jpg)
I mean, who has 2.7million dollars in their pocket and decides to put it to use making something like that? Imagine all of the biomedical research that can be done with $2.7 million. Another example is the Gates in NYC, which was a whopping $21 million. A friend of mine doesn't agree with me, saying we shouldn't compromise art and what we live for and just focus on curing diseases. I think it's easy to care more about some orange flags lined up in central park than cancer when you're not the one affected by the disease...
Post a Comment
<< Home