February 20, 2006
The Right Stuff
from - RSA
Wonder of wonders: A Bush administration appointee talks sense about science policy. National Economic Advisor Al Hubbard, in a White House press gaggle says,
And basic research will -- you know, the market doesn't -- the marketplace -- the free marketplace doesn't work for basic research, because you don't get the returns on basic research like you do in applied research. And so companies won't put the money into basic research. And that's why it's imperative that the federal government do it with taxpayer money.
Traditional small-government conservatives argue that endeavors that are capable of funding themselves should fund themselves. One of the targets of this argument is sometimes scientific research: why should we spend so much taxpayer money on activities that don't lead directly to results that everyone can appreciate? The difficulty is that it's often very difficult to predict what exactly will be useful in the future, and how. This translates into risk, which industry tries to avoid by focusing on short-term results of applied research. While much of this research is very good, it leaves questions about the long term wide open; government funding seems to be the only practical way of exploring important basic research ideas that may have no immediate impact but may also have an eventual chance of changing our lives enormously.
::Posted by RSA at February 20, 2006 04:16 PM
I once considered myself a traditional small-government conservative until I realized that I might as well consider myself as being the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny. Small government is an oxymoron.
According to the article the government has spent roughly 10 billion dollars over the last 6 years on "basic research". When you consider the fact that we have spent that much in the last two months on our adventure in the Middle East you start to realize that "basic research" is certainly nothing we cannot afford. It is all a matter of priorities.
When I think of "basic research" the study of the affects of cattle flatulence on the ozone layer comes to mind. That kind of research just leaves a simple minded guy like myself shaking his head.
That being said, I would still rather spend money on research and development than death and destruction.
| Posted by Buck on February 21, 2006 10:32 AM Link to comment |
Yeah, there's some weird (and bad) research out there. But in the U.S., evaluation standards are tight enough that I'd say very little bad stuff gets funded publicly. Not everything turns out, of course, but all the stuff going through federal agencies seems reasonable (aside from earmarked research that has a larger chance of being pork). And as you say, it's dirt cheap compared with other expenses.
| Posted by RSA on February 21, 2006 11:34 AM Link to comment |