Isn't the ultimate point of research, usually, to monetise it at a later date?
Doesn't sharing the research then make this more difficult to be first?
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:24, 1 reply, 12 years ago)

no, not really.
That's the ultimate point of most of my research, which gets me in trouble becuase I don't publish a lot of the stuff I do, I patent it instead. But a lot of academics just do blue sky stuff for "the knowledge expansion" so they just publish all the time, if it has no commerical worth.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:27, Reply)

Fair enough.
Whilst noble and raising us further away from the rest of God's creation, I would prefer to see the taxpayer turning a profit on state funded research. There's a recession on you know.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:30, Reply)

Take his pension, Stunned!

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:32, Reply)

I think you'll find that's my area of expertise.

( b3th Not shit. Not mod., Wed 2 May 2012, 11:37, Reply)

You always do see a profit.
It attracts inward investment and strengthens the economy, plus high reseach impact attracts overseas students and academics who also contribute financially. Only a fucking idiot reduces scientific research funding in a recession. Or Osborne. Oh, no, wait, I covered him the first time.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:35, Reply)

That article said govt investment on research had been protected for the life of the Parliamant?

(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Wed 2 May 2012, 11:38, Reply)

The article was written by David Willets.
He's a Tory politician.

It hasn't. Believe me, it hasn't.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 2 May 2012, 12:00, Reply)