In a message dated 10/13/02 11:00:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Should only corporate science be considered private science? ~Alypius Skinner >> For that matter, not all corporate science would be purely private either, since some of it probably gets directly subsidized and some of it indirectly so. I'm sure, for instance, that Archer Daniel Midland (which bills itself as "Supermarket to the World" but which I think of as "Airline to Bob Dole since it used to fly him around the country to campaign for the GOP nomination in 1995 and 1996) does scientific agricultural research, but it also, as I understand it, collects millions of dollars in ethanol subsidies. With the widespread intrusion of the federal government into the lives and business of everyone, it might be fruitful to consider a spectrum of research spanning the gamut from purely private to purely governmental rather than considering just the two extremes. David Levenstam GMU
