Better Return on Our Tax Dollar Investment

 I received the following post in my Facebook timeline recently. The full release by Congressman Cole can be found at: https://cole.house.gov/media-center/weekly-columns/funding-fight-cure.

One of the most important investments Congress makes with our tax dollars is the funding of university grants to support basic scientific research or the search for treatments or cures of diseases or cancers. Unfortunately, these grants turn out to be give aways rather than investments. Although society does ultimately gain some benefit from the funded research, the greatest return on these investments enures to the benefit of the researcher, their university, and ultimately, big pharma.

How does this happen?

In 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act was passed as a form of economic stimulus. In a nutshell, this act allows universities to claim ownership of inventions or scientific discoveries that result from federally funded research. The net effect of this is to incentivize universities and their researchers to jealously guard their research in anticipation of the financial and professional rewards that will result from patenting their discoveries. The payoff comes when these patents are sold or licensed to industry. 

How about a solution that would lead to more rapid advances in science and a better return to society?

My proposal:

All the fruits of federally funded research should simply go into the public domain and be unpatentable. Big pharma would be free to use the research to commercialize the findings; however, the drugs would essentially be generic from day one. The cost of the basic research and initial trials being already borne by the taxpayer, our ROI would come in the form of more drugs and treatments for more diseases and cancers at lower cost as more producers are allowed to compete. 

Bayh-Dole was essentially a wealth transfer from taxpayers to universities and the pharmaceutical industry. Congress should act more like venture capitalists and less like a non-profit charity. Bayh-Dole should be repealed or modified.

Professional Success

My Professional Success

Beth Adele

Many in the world of academia gauge their success by the number of articles they have published or by the prestige of the university or college at which they teach. Using these criteria, my career has not been particularly successful. As I transition to the next iteration of my odd life, however; I will claim one small measure of professional success of which I am proud. I am pretty sure I am not entitled to the claim but I am staking it anyway.

I first met Beth Adele in 2002/2003 shortly after joining the marketing faculty at the University of Central Oklahoma. She was sitting at the end of a long conference table, eagerly interviewing for the position of Graduate Assistant to the Marketing Department as she began her pursuit of a UCO MBA. She was hired into the position which was the beginning of our professional relationship. The intervening years have seen her complete the MBA, work in industry, teach at UCO as either an adjunct or a full time instructor, make a huge impact at UCO in Career Services, and create UCO VetHERO. She did all this while starting a family and commuting to UT Tyler for her own Ph.D. program. During this time our relationship grew from faculty-student to colleagues, research collaborators, and friends.

For the past three years I have had to immense good fortune to have Beth work with me as Assistant Dean in the School of Business at Cameron University. Now, as the School of Business has transformed into the Department of Business in the new School of Graduate and Professional Studies, Beth has been named interim Department Chair.

The transition is complete: Faculty-Student. Colleagues. Research Collaborators. Friends. And, since July 1, Beth is now my boss.

Beth would have achieved all this had we never met. She has the talent, ability, and drive to succeed. I am just pretending I might have had anything to do with it. That said, I am claiming this one little success. One cannot help but be proud when their student (actually never had her in class) becomes their boss.

The Liberal-Conservative Charade

The Liberal-Conservative Charade

 These are purely my thoughts on why we are where we are today politically. I welcome your thoughts, comments, agreement, or disagreement.

The terms Liberal and Conservative have been hijacked by pretenders.

Historically, a Liberal was one who believed in the Liberal use of government. A Liberal would believe that a large and intrusive government was best able to deliver what the population needed. This would, of course, require higher taxes to pay for services provided. It would also expect that the individual (and individual states) would be willing to surrender individual liberties for the advantages and services provided by government.

On the other hand, a Conservative was one who believed in the Conservative use of government. The Conservative would expect government to be small and non-intrusive. The Federal government would provide for national needs such as defense, regulating areas of the economy that truly affect interstate commerce. Individuals and states would be expected to provide for their needs locally through state or local taxes. Conservatives would be much more Libertarian in their beliefs in that, if the state (government) did not have a compelling interest, individual behavior would be governed by local standards and mores.

The terms as they are now applied are very different. We now have two Liberal political parties, one with a Liberal Social Philosophy and the other with a Conservative Social Philosophy. One seeks to impose on society what everyone must accept. The other seeks to tell society what is unacceptable for anyone. Both are equally willing to use the club of big government (and your tax dollars) to impose their will on society.

Some years ago, I was in a meeting with a University foundation development officer encouraging the faculty in our college to give in support of the latest university fund raising effort. Ultimately, my comment was, “The problem with getting anyone to give is that they have no reason to believe that the goals of the leadership are in any way aligned with the goals of the general faculty.”

This is the problem that many see with the current political leadership of our country. Despite all their rhetoric, “we have no evidence that their goals are in any way aligned with the goals of the average citizen.” Most Americans fall squarely between the two parties. We tend to be a bit more liberal on social issues, “leave us alone, stay out of our bedrooms.” We tend to be a bit more conservative fiscally, “we don’t mind paying taxes, but don’t waste our dollars.”

I sincerely believe that voters hunger for another alternative. There have been false starts. Years ago it was Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition. Pat Buchanan caught fire briefly. More recently it has been Ron Paul and now Bernie Sanders. None of these would likely have been a good president, but serious candidates – Libertarian or otherwise – will eventually take note and seize the opportunity. When that happens, the American oligarchs may be swept from power and never know what hit them.

“The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice.

You don’t… You have owners.” George Carlin 

Follow me on 

Twitter: www.twitter.com/@drcamey

LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/johncamey

Hobby Lobby and Caesar - Pay Up

 

 

The news and social media have been alive for some time with discussions about Hobby Lobby's determination to defy the Obama Care requirements that they provide certain contraceptive medications as part of their employee health care plan.  In particular they are opposed to making available the morning-after pill and similar emergency contraception pills.  Local news stories tend to be supportive of their position portraying it as a fight for religious freedom.  Social media discussions are largely dominated by "pro-life" voices who oppose any type of abortion and in some cases birth control.

Without taking a position on this issue one way or the other, I am not certain that I see a great deal of difference between the tactics of the federal government or Hobby Lobby in this instance.  The government is portrayed as using the force of law to require the Greens to provide a medical benefit to their employees which conflicts with their religious beliefs.  The Greens, however, choose to use the force of company policy to deny employees access to a medical service that has (morality aside) been determined to be a constitutionally protected right.

Pro-life advocates make a compelling moral argument; however, they cannot and will not carry the day through either force of law or company policy.  Existing court rulings are not going to be overturned.  If their case is to be won it needs to be won from the pulpit, on the street corner and through moral persuasion.  Hobby Lobby is a major retailer with a large number of employees.  They operate under the laws of the United States and have been quite profitable.  Once laws are enacted they really cannot pick and choose.  They really have to "...give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar..."  

Pay Up

 

Christmas Gifting

Well, it seems I can't find time to blog for myself but I can for others...

My good friend and colleague asked me to contribute to her blog, "The Accidental Okie" about Christmas gifting from a guy's perspective.

You can read it here: 

Christmas Gift Giving Guide: John, The Connoisseur  http://wp.me/p2B7zT-y6 via @wordpressdotcom

Leaving Home

When did you leave home? I mean REALLY leave home?

I boarded a bus just about a month before my 18th birthday for a recruiting station in Kansas City and I have never really gone home since. In the intervening years I have lived around the world (Viet Nam to Iceland and points in between) had incredible experiences and met amazing people. Oh, I visited my parents and with siblings at special events in our shared home town but I have never felt the pull to return to my small Missouri (Humansville) town or to its small ways. Other than the brief occasional cemetary visit to honor my parents I have not "gone home" in nearly 20 years.

"You Can't Go Home Again" is a novel by Thoma Wolfe. The phrase has taken root in our language to communicate the idea that after seeing the bigger, more sophisticated world one cannot return to their provincial, small town ways of living and thinking. The same idea was popularized earlier in the 20th century by Eddie Cantor. The line from his well known song was, "How you gonna keep'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree?"

During my brief forays into the small town way of thinking I have found myself wondering, "Why?" Why do people with so much potential and talent not leave home? Didn't they aspire to more? Will they, someday, realize what they missed? People I knew long ago and people I have more recently come to know choose to give up on life and settle for less than they could have. Why? Why do people born in small towns find it so hard to think big?

Maybe home is a trap. Maybe Wolfe and Cantor were only half right in their assertions. The real problem is not whether you can go home again but whether you can escape your small town mindset at all. It might just be that the Eagles got it right about small towns and small thinking in the song "Hotel California." "You can check out at any time but you can never leave."

What about you? Have you left home yet? When will you?

Comments and thoughts appreciated. You can follow me on Twitter @drcamey.