Government and Science: A Dangerous Liaison?

[Hogeye]

Here's a book review from the newsletter "Lighthouse."


GOVERNMENT AND SCIENCE

Although private industry in the United States spends $8 billion to $10
billion a year on basic scientific research, total federal spending on
basic research is about $35 billion a year. The dominance of government
funding is troubling, according to economists William N. Butos and
Thomas J. McQuade, who present their case in "Government and Science: A Dangerous Liaison?" (THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, fall 2006).

Here's the problem, according to Butos and McQuade: Whereas both
civic-minded (or prestige-seeking) private donors and profit-seeking
businesses have incentives to tie their funding to the scientific results they
generate, legislatures have incentives to tie funding to voter and
constituent perceptions. The indirectness in this political dynamic has
four potentially corrosive effects: incentive effects, "Big Player"
effects, problems of boom and bust, and problems of bureaucracy.

Here's how each operates to undermine scientific integrity:

1. Incentive effects refer to the incentives scientists (and their
sponsoring institutions, typically universities) have to pursue projects in
ways that appeal to the funding agencies -- typically ways that
strengthen the paradigms, models, and ways of thinking that currently
characterize particular disciplines.

2. "Big Player" effects refer to the fact that the magnitude of
government funding can distort the allocation of research, exposing science to
a self-reinforcing, path-dependent process analogous to bubbles in
financial markets. For example, although lung cancers are the leading cause
of cancer deaths in both men and women in the United States, the
federally funded National Cancer Institute spends on average $577 million per
year on breast cancer, compared to $286 million per year on lung
cancer. Even adjusting for nonsmokers, federal research funding per capita
for breast cancer would still significantly exceed the figure for lung
cancer.

3. Government funding leads to bursts of heavy funding in some areas,
cutbacks or neglect in others as political winds change direction.
Temporarily unconstrained funding fosters unstable growth in particular
areas of research compared to private funding. Drastic cutbacks in
particular programs, which have been the rule, disrupt scientists' careers.

4. The bureaucratic imperative produces budget-driven, risk-averse,
politically popular research, which comes at the expense of
outcome-driven, innovative research that may result in a larger scientific payoff.

"We are only too aware that the topic of government funding of science
is a large and complex one and, to make things more difficult, one more
likely to be discussed in normative rather than positive terms" write
Butos and McQuade. "Our objective in this article and in future work is
to provide a positive analysis of the effects of government funding on
science and to illustrate the predicted effects empirically."

"Government and Science: A Dangerous Liaison?" by William N. Butos and Thomas J. McQuade (THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, fall 2006)
http://www.independent.org/publications ... icleID=598

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

All funding creates bias. Government funding creates less bias than industry funding. Industry funding tells us "chocolate-coated sugar bombs" are equal in nutritional value as a bowl of oatmeal, that cigarette smoking in general, and second-hand smoke especially, has no negative health impacts, that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental scientists to make money, ad nauseum. Until government became controlled by industry, it didn't have a vested interest in the outcome of most research. If the "K Street connection" gets cut, the government will again not have a vested interest in the outcome of most research. Government funding permits much more research than would happen if industry alone funded it. Especially since most major corporations slashed their R&D departments when they went to quarterly reporting for stock value, about 15 years ago now. (Nothing looks good on a quarterly report except firing people, which is why corporate America is so fond of "layoffs".)

[Hogeye]

All funding creates bias.

Right - that's point #1.

Government funding creates less bias than industry funding.

This seems obviously wrong to me. The government has an extraordinary "market share" in research funding, so all the arguments against monopoly apply. See point #2: "Big Player" effects refer to the fact that the magnitude of government funding can distort the allocation of research. The examples Barbara gives are cherry-picked and not even indicative of overall industry research. Yes, one or two biased industry studies may claim that sugar candy is as nutricious as oatmeal, but these are offset by the many firms that show oatmeal and more natural cereals are better. That's the point: A pluralist competitive effort has a good chance to get it right, but government has little competition or even the need to justify its "research." Government research is tainted by politics - as cannabis research, cancer research, and alarmist global warming research shows. That's point #3: "Government funding leads to bursts of heavy funding in some areas, cutbacks or neglect in others as political winds change direction."

If the "K Street connection" gets cut, the government will again not have a vested interest in the outcome of most research.

I don't know what the K Street connection is, but hoping that the State suddenly let's researchers possess cannabis, despite the massive DEA employee groups, the LEO lobby, the pharm and alcohol lobby, etc. seems hopelessly utopian. The government, by its very nature, will always have an interest in favoring munitions research and other areas useful in maintaining and increasing its power.

Government funding permits much more research than would happen if industry alone funded it. Especially since most major corporations slashed their R&D departments...

This is unconvincing. It is impossible to say how much private research would occur if government was out of the research business. Perhaps firms do less research precisely because they can get other people to fund it through governent theft. Why do something costly when the State does it for free? Would Edison or Tesla have have done the research they did if government was massively subsidizing competitors and reducing profit potential? IMO government research has undermined private research, just as the government takeover of any service atrophies society's ability to do it voluntarily.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Other than munitions, government has NO vested interest in the outcome of research unless corporate "campaign financing" or other "perk" money is involved. It does not matter to government whether or not canabis is helpful or harmful - it matters to the drug industry who hand out mega-donations to candidates who will keep it illegal. K Street is where all the lobbying offices are located in Washington, DC. Cut that connection and it will go back to not mattering as far as government research is concerned.

The "unregulated market polices itself" myth is the basis for much anarchist and Libertarian - commentary. Anarchists and Libertarians on "free" market are just like fundies on evolution. There is a reason for regulatory agencies and laws and that reason is response to "free" market corruption. Before labeling laws and truth in advertising laws (and yes, industry does its best to get around them) the cocoa you bought was likely 90% brick dust, the sugar 50% sand, and the flour more sawdust than wheat. Snake oil salesmen abounded with "magic" elixers to cure everything from warts to cancer, and impotence besides. Before government standardization of weights and measures, you never knew exactly how much you were paying for - a residue of which still exists in the "short" ton (2000 lbs) and the "long" ton (2200 lbs). And before government laws regulating punishment for "shorting" someone the response ranged from nothing (if the victim was a child or aged widow) to being beaten to a bloody pulp (if the victim was or was related to a hot-tempered, large, skilled fighter). Yes, we need to "guard the guards" as power does corrupt, but the answer isn't to throw out the guarding system.

[Hogeye]

Other than munitions, government has NO vested interest in the outcome of research unless corporate "campaign financing" or other "perk" money is involved.

I think that may be overstating it a bit. Government has a vested interest in anything that maintains or increases its power. Military might is one thing that increases power, but so is e.g. indoctrination of the masses, control of the monetary system, surveillance of its subjects, maintaining the ability to detain or arrest at will, and so on. Rothbard called these "command posts" for maintaining control.

Also, your statement seems to only consider corporate special interests which influence and buy government power, when there are many others special interests which also do so. Government employee unions, big established labor unions, fundie Xtian groups, environmental groups, anti-immigrant groups, etc. Corporations are perhaps the main buyers of govt power, but certainly not the only special interest; if corporations were somehow barred from buying power, other groups would step in immediately to replace them. It's the institution, stupid! The institution of State will sell power to the highest bidder, be they union, firm, or non-profit. The solution is not to switch power-buyers, but to reduce the amount of power available for sale, or better, elimate the power-seller altogether.

It does not matter to government whether or not cannabis is helpful or harmful - it matters to the drug industry who hand out mega-donations to candidates who will keep it illegal.

Government has a vested interest in being able to arrest or round up dissenters. One way to do this "legitimately" is to make it so virtually everyone is a criminal, and subject to arrest. Victimless "crime" laws and ubiquitous regulation accomplish this quite well. If the government wants to shut someone up, with enough auditing and spying they can generally find an excuse to do so. Cannabis prohibition laws make, what, 10 to 20% of Americans subject to arrest. The necessarily selective arrests for victimless "crimes" is conducive to stifling dissent.

Before labeling laws and truth in advertising laws the cocoa you bought was likely 90% brick dust, the sugar 50% sand, and the flour more sawdust than wheat.

LOL! Do you really believe this? In the real world, getting such products was quite unlikely, since people who sold shoddy merchandise or defrauded people tended to go out of business.

Standardization of measures (language, scientific theory and notation, even machine parts) goes on with or without government. Please don't pretend government solipotence here. Legal systems to handle "shorting" someone also, of course, evolved both with and without government. Law Merchant, still the basis for international commercial law, was developed outside government auspices. Local courts in the American West handled such cases long before government got there. Non-statist Anglo-Saxon Common Law preceeded government monopoly law in England. Government solipotence obviously doesn't apply here, either.

Yes, we need to "guard the guards" as power does corrupt, but the answer isn't to throw out the guarding system.

Right! We need to take the anarchist approach - allow competing legal service providers. We need to end government (monopoly) law, recognizing that it is corrupt, inefficient, and unjust. We need many guards, competing for customers, who watch each other.