Anecdotal evidence abounds to show that basic research selected and funded by the Federal government has produced enormous benefits. For example, at the Department of Energy, papers have been prepared over the years to present this evidence, and the compiled papers are now available via the web. See http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments , "a central forum for information about the outcomes of past DOE R&D that have had significant economic impact, have improved people's lives, or have been widely recognized as a remarkable advance in science. An R&D accomplishment is the outcome of past research whose benefits are being realized now." Among the better examples are nuclear medicine and nuclear power, which are both directly traceable to the old Atomic Energy Commission.
Other research agencies boast their own anecdotes. For example, government funding was central to development of the internet. On the other hand, there are lots of dead ends, and it is difficult or impossible to show any benefit from the great bulk of basic research projects. Further, the current methods of selecting projects, whether by peer review of proposals or by pork funding, have well known shortcomings. It would seem to be possible to improve the methods by which projects are selected. Bell Labs used a diferent model for science management, and it was highly successful until the money dried up. (The development of the transistor, by itself, would seem to justify all of Bell Labs' expenditures.) Bell Labs found exceptionally trusted and competent science leaders, and then gave them tremendous feedom to direct a program. This was also the model used for the Manhattan Project, but it is little used in government today. Determining an optimal level of funding for basic research is a problem that has not, so far, yielded to analytic solution. Rather, setting levels of research is an entirely political process. In recent years, NIH has been growing by leaps and bounds. Walt -----Original Message----- From: Alypius Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 12:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science ----- Original Message ----- From: Warnick, Walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In the natural sciences, basic research at universities tends to be funded > by the Federal government. > Basic research funded by corporations is very small. > > Walt Warnick This has always been my impression. I suppose a key question here is to what extent basic research ultimately contributes to discovery and invention in applied research. Has anyone investigated this question? ~Alypius Skinner > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alypius Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2002 9:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > That the expense of cushy jobs for > > okay scientists was more than offset by the gains from > > getting only the best scientists to go to Bell Labs, > > or MIT, or wherever. > > > Pardon my ignorance, but is MIT a private or public institution? (I thought > it was public, but that is merely an assumption on my part.) For that > matter, would not even private universities have enough direct or > indirect government subsidy to blur the lines between "government science" > and private science? Should only corporate science be considered private > science? > > ~Alypius Skinner > > > > The review didn't seem to > > indicate that that was addressed. > > > > -jsh > > > > > > --- Alypius Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/apr2000/books/ff_govscience.html > > > > > > The Case against Government Science > > > The Economic Laws of Scientific Research > > > Terence Kealey > > > St. Martin's, New York, 1997 > > > 382 pp, paper ISBN 0-312-17306-7 > > > Reviewed by Frank Forman > > > > > > > > > Ayn Rand dramatized the case against government > > > funding of science in Atlas Shrugged, but a > > > dramatization is not evidence. The problem is that, > > > according to standard economic theory, research is > > > almost a perfect example of a "pure public good," a > > > good that once produced can be consumed by all > > > without any possibility of exclusion by way of > > > property-rights delimitation. Such goods will be > > > underproduced in the market, since the producers can > > > capture only the benefits of the research that they > > > themselves use. Rational citizens, all of them, > > > might very well empower the state to provide for the > > > provision of research and other public goods. Not > > > every citizen would actually benefit from each good > > > so provided, but under a well-designed constitution, > > > each citizen would presumably be better off as a > > > result of constitutionally limited state provision > > > of public goods than without it. This would mean > > > unanimity of agreement-a social contract-and hence > > > no initiation of force. > > > > > > But what about government funding of science? Nearly > > > every scientific paper, it is true, seems to > > > conclude with an appeal for funds for "further > > > research," but even so the case for public funding > > > is accepted by nearly everyone except a few > > > ideological extremists. Along comes a bombshell of a > > > book by Terence Kealey, The Economic Laws of > > > Scientific Research, that argues that government > > > funding of science at best displaces private funding > > > and in fact diverts research into less productive > > > channels. I am surprised that this book has not > > > gotten much more attention from the free-market > > > community. > > > > > > The book is essentially a history of science and its > > > funding, with the number of pages per century > > > increasing up to the present. The author argues that > > > technology drives science, even basic science, just > > > as much as the reverse, which is awfully reminiscent > > > of John Galt and his motor. Kealey describes the > > > work of several engineers and other practical men > > > turned scientists, such as Carnot, Torricelli, > > > Joule, Pasteur, and Mendel. He argues that most new > > > technology comes from old technology. The book is > > > highly instructive on matters of history and greatly > > > entertaining to read. To wit: > > > > > > "Laissez-faire works. The historical (and > > > contemporary) evidence is compelling: the freer the > > > markets and the lower the taxes, the richer the > > > country grows. But laissez-faire fails to satisfy > > > certain human needs. It fails the politician, who > > > craves for power; it fails the socialist, who craves > > > to impose equality on others; it fails the > > > businessman, who craves for security; and it fails > > > the anally fixated, who craves for order. It also > > > fails the idle, the greedy, and the sluttish, who > > > crave for a political system that allows them to > > > acquire others' wealth under the due process of law. > > > This dreadful collection of inadequates, therefore, > > > will coalesce on dirigisme, high taxes and a strong > > > state" (p. 260). > > > > > > Here are the three Laws of Funding for Civil R&D, > > > based upon comparing different countries and across > > > time: > > > > > > 1.. "The percentage of national GDP spent > > > increases with national GDP per capita. > > > 2.. "Public and private funding displace each > > > other. > > > 3.. "Public and private displacements are not > > > equal: public funds displace more than they do > > > themselves provide" (p. 245). > > > But it is not just the funds that are displaced; so > > > is their effectiveness, as a rule, from projects > > > that have a promise to become useful to those that > > > only keep scientists busy. Furthermore, many wealthy > > > men generously fund science and are free to choose > > > genuine innovators and not those merely expert in > > > filling out grant applications. Kealey describes > > > many gentleman amateurs, the greatest being Darwin. > > > And he compares the quality of private and public > > > medical research in England during this century in > > > detail, with the advantage going to the former. > > > > > > Kealey also notes that businesses have to fund their > > > own science departments even if they would rather > > > let other businesses perform the research and > > > free-ride off it: it takes pretty good scientists to > > > be able to understand what the really good ones are > > > up to. And those that have an talent for science > > > will demand at least a small lab as part of the > > > perks of the job. > > > > > > The Economic Laws of Scientific Research belongs on > > > a growing shelf of books about the general futility > > > and perversity of government activity. The > > > perversity is better known: we all know about > > > Charles Murray's thesis on the perversity of poverty > > > programs from his Losing Ground (New York: Basic > > > Books, 1984). What is less known is the futility of > > > attempts to increase redistribution though > > > government. Gordon Tullock, in Economics of Income > > > Redistribution (Boston: Kluwer-Nijhof, 1983), argued > > > that men are naturally moderately charitable and > > > will give up five percent of their income to help > > > the poor - and will do so whether organized > > > privately or collectively. Public poverty programs > > > are perverse, since public programs (esp. federal > > > ones) must operate under bureaucratic rules and > > > cannot distinguish the deserving from the > > > undeserving poor. > > > > > > There is a similar constant in health care. The > > > percentage of GDP devoted to health care in > > > countries around the world is solely a function of > > > GDP per capita and is independent of its > > > organization, privately or publicly. (See the last > > > chapter of Charles E. Phelps, Health Economics (New > > > York: HarperCollins, 1992).) Public provision of > > > health care is futile, in that it does not increase > > > the amount of GDP devoted to it. It is perverse, > > > since publicly funded health care suffers from the > > > usual problems. And now Kealey has shown the same > > > thing for science. Perversity, yes - but futility, > > > much more so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > > > Frank Forman is the author of The Metaphysics of > > > Liberty (Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic, 1989). > > > > > > > > > Cycad Web Works Mon Sep 23 12:31:15 EDT 2002 > > > : # 1 : last modified 11/3/2000 > > > pinc viewed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > > http://faith.yahoo.com > > > > >
