RE: (book review)The Case against Government Science
Francois-Rene Rideau reads much more into the discussion than was said. Except for 1) his incorrect inferences about my views about topics important to economics, 2) improperly paraphrasing what I wrote, and 3) the name calling, I agree with his points, and always have. As for being part of a statist economy, I plead guilty, along with many other members of this list whose salaries come from government schools, private schools sustained by government funds, and government agencies. It may be presumptuous of me to speak on behalf of those of us who are part of the statist economy, but I suspect that we would rather be judged by what we write or do (more precisely, which future among achievable alternatives do we help to create), than on where we work. Perhaps an analogy might help. In 1993, a popular movie was made about Oskar Schindler, who was a member of the Nazi party and a profiteer during World War II. But this is not why the movie was made; rather, the movie was made because Schindler saved lives; i.e., he created a future that was much preferred over achievable alternatives. While none of us on this list face anything like that degree of risk, my guess is that, with few exceptions, those on this list have consciously risked careers and opportunities to help create a future more consistent with the themes of this list. Walt Warnick -Original Message- From: Francois-Rene Rideau [mailto:fare;tunes.org] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:28:04PM -0400, Warnick, Walt wrote: Anecdotal evidence abounds to show that basic research selected and funded by the Federal government has produced enormous benefits. [...] I am amazed to find here such a blatant example of the What is seen and what is not seen fallacy. The point is not whether government did some good. By that measure, the russians being richer in 1991 than in 1917, we could say that communism was a wonderful experience (please replace by whichever phenomenon you love to hate, that lasted long enough - absolute monarchy? slavery? protectionism? belief in a flat earth? some or some other official religion?). The fallacy is that you don't choose between the past and the future. You choose between several futures. Comparing the state of science in 1950 to the state of science in 1980, and saying hey, government did great! is an utter fallacy. What you must compare is the state of science in 1980 under some assumptions to the state of science in 1980 under some other assumptions - and then find which assumption is more favorable. But even then, science is not the only thing to consider so as to judge - and you must consider other factors, too. When comparing benefits, you must compare the cost - and time itself is part of the cost; it is a resource that could have been used in different ways. Said other wise: only choices matter. The only costs are opportunity costs, and so are the only benefits. 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. You speak like a technocrat: your discourse is full of anerisms, and false solutions to false problems. The emptiness of your discourse is directly tied to your statist point of view (see the origins of the word statistics, e.g. in the recent book Damn Lies and Statistics). Statist economy is an intellectual fraud, and I'm afraid you're part of it. I thought this mailing-list was precisely about showing how the praxeological economist point of view applies to all fields of human action. I suppose it also shows how statist economists may invade just any field of knowledge, so as to further their sick memes. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | ReflectionCybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ] There is no such thing as a necessary evil. If it's necessary, then it cannot be evil, neither can it be good: it's a datum.-- Faré
Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science
- Original Message - From: Eric Crampton [EMAIL PROTECTED] The upshot isn't that government science is entirely ineffective, it's that it displaces private science spending dollar for dollar. The question then isn't how effective government science is, it's how effective the private science foregone would have been. So if we were to look at ratios of government-financed research to privately-financed research in various countries, after adjusting for total levels of spending, do countries with proportionately greater private funding for research achieve proportionately greater practical results, equal results, or poorer results? Does anyone have any idea? ~Alypius Skinner
Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science
--- Francois-Rene Rideau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously, the government didn't forecast the unpredictable path of discovery any more than the private sector. Non sequitur. No. I was using the story as neither a premise nor a conclusion to an argument about funding sources. It seemed as though the discussion was starting to be framed in terms of useful vs. useless science, and I wanted to nip it in the bud with an interesting example. --- Gil Guillory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry so long. I enjoy reading all the posts, even the long ones. I would also like to raise an objection to the supposed distinction between basic and applied research. This is, at best, a...continuum with a fuziness akin to the economic distinction between goods of the first order and goods of higher orders. I feel like I'm in a Monty Python sketch. Since I'm a clumsy writer at best, I will accept defeat. The argument is much better presented in a chapter from this list's namesake. That's not an argument from authority! I'm just pointing to an interesting idea to which I cannot do justice. Best regards, jsh = ...for no one admits that he incurs an obligation to another merely because that other has done him no wrong. -Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Discourse 16. __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science
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. Which hits on my original remark: if we have two types of scientists, Basic Applied, and if business is the only funder of research, then the firms will be hiring both types since the Basics will portray themselves as Applieds to get jobs. With gov't. funding basic research, then the Basics get to do basic research at taxpayer expense, but the firms can apply the Applieds to applied research at greater efficiency because there are no Basics getting in the way. The economic benefits of this separation outweighs the cost of paying for basic research. The world is better off. That's not to say that basic research is not valuable, but it evidently follows strange and unpredictable paths. The Nobel winning chemist Dudly Herschback traced the path of work starting with Otto Stern 75 years ago on molecular rays (or beams) to test a prediction of quantum physics. It lead to the discovery of the laser, radio-astronomy, and nuclear magnetic resonance which lead to the MRI. Chemists who wanted to study crossed beams layed the groundwork for the discovery of the Buckyball, with the study that discovered it being motivated by studying interstellar spectra. And the Buckyball, in turn, may prove a key to shutting down an enzyme that governs the HIV virus' replication, not to mention the value it has as a strong and lightweight material. He ends the story by noting that, No funding agency would find plausable a research proposal requesting support on supersonic beams or interstellar spectra as an approach to AIDS. But many such historical paths can be traced that celebrate hybridizing discoveries from seemingly unrelated patches of scientific gardens. -jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com
Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 05:16:11PM -0700, john hull wrote: The economic benefits of this separation [between Applied and Basic researchers] outweighs the cost of paying for basic research. How is this separation a benefit at all? Not separating them will mean that they can better cooperate with each other and cross-breed their work. In France, we have a very high rate of separation, and France has a reputation for great researchers - but what good are these french researchers, if they can't cooperate with each other and with the industry? France also has a very low reputation for actually useful science, for cooperation that leads to actual results, etc. Your whole argument is a dubious petitio principii. That's not to say that basic research is not valuable, but it evidently follows strange and unpredictable And how is that an argument for or against state funding of research? Obviously, the government didn't forecast the unpredictable path of discovery any more than the private sector. Non sequitur. As usual, the only contribution of government intervention is irresponsibility and rent-seeking. Mind you, in a free society, if you and 50% of the people want to fund gratuitous research, no one is going to stop you. Yours freely, [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | ReflectionCybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ] -- Question authority! -- Yeah, says who?
Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 On the other hand, if there really is a trend of increasing scientific value-added as one goes from totally public to totally private research, then would it not be beneficial to all concerned--science, government, industry, consumers--to eliminate all government funding of scienfic research? I am not convinced that this is the case, but, as they say, stranger things have happened. We ought to look and see. ~Alypius Skinner
Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science
In a message dated 10/14/02 4:32:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 On the other hand, if there really is a trend of increasing scientific value-added as one goes from totally public to totally private research, then would it not be beneficial to all concerned--science, government, industry, consumers--to eliminate all government funding of scienfic research? I am not convinced that this is the case, but, as they say, stranger things have happened. We ought to look and see. ~Alypius Skinner I'm not suggesting that we forget about the issue of whether government funding of science is a good thing. I'm suggesting that we look at a spectrum rather than two polar opposites, on the contrary, specifically for the purpose of attempting to discern whether there's any correlation between more government and worse science. Even if we accept--as I'm inclined to--that government funding of science is a bad thing, that doesn't mean that ending government funding will benefit everyone. People whose bread is buttered on the side of government funding of science will certainly not benefit in their own eyes when they lose their funding. David Levenstam
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 RD, 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
Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science
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
Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science
Gosh, I guess Canada is in a very bad way according to this author. Shirley - Original Message - From: Alypius Skinner To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:36 AM Subject: (book review)The Case against Government Science http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/apr2000/books/ff_govscience.html The Case against Government ScienceThe Economic Laws of Scientific ResearchTerence KealeySt. Martin's, New York, 1997382 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 RD, based upon comparing different countries and across time: "The percentage of national GDP spent increases with national GDP per capita. "Public and private funding displace each other. "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
Re: (book review)The Case against Government Science
I was given to the impression that one of the benefits of gov't funded science was that it creates separating equilibria such that the okay, but not ground breaking, scientists don't muck-up the works at ground breaking institutions by misrepresenting themselves and getting hired. 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. 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 RD, 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
