HCI research frequently does not seem to produce ideas that are immediately exploitable for great commercial benefit. Steve Draper has argued against thinking in terms of this model, in his introduction to the debate. The time it takes for basic research to trickle down and have an impact can usually be measured in decades. Instead he has made some other suggestions as to how we might view research. For instance, researchers can be viewed as living interfaces to the body of research knowledge.
Draper also argues that employers want to hire graduates with the latest skills and training.
University teachers need to be in touch with the latest techniques so they can keep their courses up to date, and so they are sufficiently qualified to train researchers for industry. Paddy O'Donnell instead argued that an alternative view of research funding should be taken. Doing a research degree, for example, produces highly trained individuals. One defence of HCI funding might therefore be to show that graduates with PhDs in HCI were prized by industry. The question cannot be about whether the state should fund any research but must be specific to the nature of HCI as a discipline.