On Mar 11, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Alan Rudy wrote:
> If researchers and administrators argued that Big Science contributed to the
> commonweal and, as such, deserved a subsidy through tuition, fees and state
> dollars that'd be one thing... and we could hold them to that, but they
> don't... at the most they argue that what's good for large corporate profits
> and info-/bio-tech start-ups is good for the public.
The NIH claims to be putting 83% of it's $28B budget into health research through grants. How does this compare with corporate spending on health research? And are the results of the NIH research expenditures publicly owned and licensed?
martin