Re: [compost_tea] Re:pretty close to compost tea!

From: <soilfoodweb_at_aol.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 18:53:16 EDT

Your argument appears to be that there would be no funding of research
without the probability of commercial funding.

If that were true, it would be a sad, sad commentary on just how far our
government has sold out to the commercial world.

I think it is in very poor taste that you attempt to taint my objections to
this commercialism by suggesting I'm demonizing something that should be
objected to by every tax payer in the US.

I am not demonizing these people's work, I am objecting to people using US
tax payer dollars to patent materials, and/or processes, which those of us who
actually paid to have the research done will now have to pay extra to be able
to use those very products that our dollars went to develop.

This product is in commercial development, which is what the "conduct further
tests" means.
 
Don't you see the ethical impropriety with these sorts of situations?

When research grants are awarded, there is NO requirement that commercial
development occur. There is no improved chances of getting the funding because
commercial development might be possible.

At the very least, once the product is on the market, the company ought to
pay tax payers back for the development money.

That would supply money to allow true researchers to continue working on
aspects of science that possibly don't have any commercial potentials.

Elaine R. Ingham
Soil Foodweb Inc., Corvallis, Oregon
Soil Foodweb Inc., Port Jefferson, New York
Soil Foodweb Institute, Lismore Australia
Soil Foodweb Institute Cambridge, New Zealand
Soil Foodweb Inc., Oosterbeck, The Netherlands
Laboratorios de Soil Foodweb, Culiacan, Mexico
Soil Foodweb Inc., Jerome, Idaho
Soil Foodweb Inc., South Africa







Received on Tue Oct 05 2004 - 21:40:27 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:30 EST