>>13519195>Why do academicucks force the meme that their research is more fulfilling than industry R&D?It depends on the field.
R&D is only done if it is potentially profitable. But what is profitable isn't necessarily what will have a meaningful impact. For example, the insulin cartel isn't doing R&D to reduce the cost of insulin, and I doubt they are doing research to completely cure diabetes.
Look at the phoebus cartel as an example. Instead of continuing to improve lightbulb quality, they opted to increase profit by holding back progress.
Academichads do research which is too expensive for private companies to do, and which potentially could never be reasonably patented or provide a greter profit. i.e, research which does not reasonably provide an advantage to the private company funding it.
Arguably a group of private companies could come together to fund research that would benefit them all, but that would be to increase their profit rather than benefit humanity.
Just like the phoebus cartel, big pharma has no incentive to produce a cure for cancer, because competition will cut the cost down rapidly, undercutting their chemotherapy (and other treatment) profits.
Private R&D is good at only advancing profits. If that means ignoring truly beneficial work, then the work will be ignored. But private R&D is also all about reducing production costs.
Academic research is about doing the work that isn't profitable for individual private companies. But academic research does return an average 20% profit per year, for each 1$ invested
