[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to me to be an implicit assumption that efficiency is very important. Clearly it is important, but only one of many factors that is used to take the measure of society. Even if government funded research is less efficient somehow, that isn't necessarily the be all and end all of the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I really dislike discussing things in absolutes. In the Pharmaceutical industry this is certainly not the case. Big Pharma spends more money on hot 20 something saleswomen than researchers. Even among the scientists and statisticians there are running jokes among certain Big Pharma companies that they don't get anything done because they are too busy having meetings with the suites. In academia in drug discovery the opposite is true as the principle complaint is that researchers are overworked and underpaid. Things may be different in other fields but my experience in the east coast and in the midwest is consistent. The only exception I've seen is when somebody I know went to Australia to work for a smallish bio-tech company. He said he works much longer hours. The confounding factors there is that he is not at a big company and he is no longer doing basic research but more business stuff. Small companies tend to be more cutthroat than big biotech companies. He is also earning more than twice the pay but he is not working twice the hours.

Again, other fields may be different, but I do know that in my field researchers do far more work for far less pay in Academia. My general opinion of academic bio-tech research is that it's fascinating and highly educational but the compensation and pay is extremely depressing. While adios's experience has apparently been vastly different I do wish we would get off of speaking in absolutes. It's simply misguided IMO.