----- 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 > > > > >
