I was invited to address the BioProcessing Network at a dinner on the myths of public science. They were looking for a ‘thought provoking’ presentation for their membership.
I based my presentation around three IPA publications Back to basics: Why government funding of science is a waste of our money, The myths of public science and University research: The need for paying customers.
An author in this field well worth reading is Terence Kealey also the VC of the University of Buckingham.
Agreed Sincs. One could also write “the myth of the public intellectual”
Samuel J
2 Sep 10 at 7:51 am
But in 1969, when Wilson was in the hot seat testifying before the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Sen. John Pastore demanded to know how a multimillion-dollar particle accelerator improved the security of the country. Wilson said the experimental physics machine had “nothing at all” to do with security, and the senator persisted.
“It has only to do,” Wilson told the lawmakers, “with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.”
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan00/RRWilson_obit.hrs.html
PSC
2 Sep 10 at 10:42 pm
Amazing. PSC quoted exactly the same passage that someone told me on my latest visit to MIT:
“It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.”
Of course, the accelerator in question was largely funded by Department of Defense. But surely a lot of our science is for purposes which have nothing to do with economics, and economic analysis does not apply. Yes we want to learn about distant stars and we know it will not produce any (positive) economic effect. I know libertarians will say that this is of no interest to most members of the society, and people can fund it if they like, without stealing from the taxpayer. But somehow I am not convinced.
Boris
3 Sep 10 at 2:37 am
you’re no convinced, Boris?
A great of even harder science was done with private money and donations. I say it would have been harder because they didn’t have the tools we have now.
I would say that a large % of the stuff we get now is shit science that is basically useless even from a knowledge only point of view with so-called scientists churning out papers to make their resumes look good all done on the public purse.
JC
3 Sep 10 at 2:43 am
But directly on the topic of the post, in my view the idea that current or somewhat amended IP protection system allows for effective return on private R&D investment is flawed. In my view the system provides protection of very restrictive types of inventions, and even then is so cumbersome and expensive as being almost unworkable.
“The patent system—intended to foster and protect innovation—is generating waste and uncertainty
that hinders and threatens the innovative process”
Indeed. Seems like the author admits that it unworkable.
Boris
3 Sep 10 at 2:44 am
JC I don’t deny there is a lot of waste. But to say we do not need astronomy or pure math? No I can’t agree. sorry.
Boris
3 Sep 10 at 2:46 am
Why would we be doing away with those two, to name just those.
I’d say we wouldn’t get rid of any of the hard sciences and perhaps even strengthen them more as we did away with the crap there. We would probably lose a larger portion in the social sciences which isn’t necessarily a bad thing when there are “professors” in that area suggesting females are raped every time they have sex with men.
JC
3 Sep 10 at 2:50 am
While we’re at it why don’t we do away with fundamental research in particle physics. Consider the concept of “spin”, developed in the 1920′s. Absolutely fundamental concept in MRI technology. Given current research this may also revolutionise computing in an unimaginable way. The speed, the memory capacity, dizzying! Or consider the pure research of Seyle, yep, total waste of money there too. Does anyone here know how much mathematical play has led to the creation of theorems that have facilitated any number of technologies? And who during his time would have considered how important Einstein’s research was to later technologies? What about the research of Skinner and his work “Verbal Behavior”, now providing the most valuable concepts to teach autistic children to speak. Yep, another waste of time. Or how about CSIRO having to see a US telco which stole its Wifi technology? And how on earth do you ever hope to develop biomedical technology without pure research?
How about we get rid of publicly paid economists? No university posts, no funding for economic think tanks, and of course we can summarily dismiss the work of Hayek and von Mises, who did work for public institutions so ipso facto was an oxygen bandit.
John H.
3 Sep 10 at 3:04 am
JC, if you read Sinc’s papers, he is against public funding for ANY science.
Boris
3 Sep 10 at 3:24 am
Even the ‘purest’ and apparently most abstract research often turns out to generate high (and captureable) private returns. Google has upended the entire media and advertising industries and generated vast returns by attacking them using maths.
Concerned Conservative
3 Sep 10 at 5:58 am
Boris – I’m not opposed to government paying for research where it actually has a need for the outcomes. But pure curiousity research shouldn’t be funded by the taxpayer.
Concerned conservative – I more or less agree with that statement. Pure and abstract research can (perhaps not often, but can) lead to valuable products – but why must government pay for that?
Sinclair Davidson
3 Sep 10 at 7:12 am
Abbott is now claiming he will sack 1,300 CSIRO staff if he wins. Yet another reason I pray the doofus graces the opposition benches once more. Interesting that he hasn’t announced he will be closing down the Institute of Sport.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/coalition-proposals-could-see-csiro-shed-up-to-1300-key-staff/story-e6frgcjx-1225912498289
Peter Patton
3 Sep 10 at 10:08 am
PP
One minute you are telling us that Gillard and co are poison and the next you are saying that sacking public servants is so evil that Tony Abbott should go back to the Opposition benches.
No one can accuse you of perspective now can they?
Rococo Liberal
3 Sep 10 at 10:18 am
The problaem is that the scientists get uppity and political if they are reliant on the taxpayer. Just look at hte AGW scandal. Scientists around the world have been spruiking AGW because they knew it’s what Governments wanted to hear, not because it was true. Science needs to go private to get back its integrity.
Rococo Liberal
3 Sep 10 at 10:21 am
Astronomy is basically a hobby, like stamp collecting. Totally useless and a scandalous waste of money.
C.L.
3 Sep 10 at 10:34 am
So, CL, I see you haven’t quite forgiven Copernicus yet.
steve from brisbane
3 Sep 10 at 10:38 am
RL
I have always said I do not think Abbott is fit to govern, and that he is a doofus. I am also appalled by the revelations of Labor’s unravelling. But on balance I think an Abbott-led government is the greater of the two evils.
Peter Patton
3 Sep 10 at 10:42 am
Primarily because he is the anti-christ of liberalism.
Peter Patton
3 Sep 10 at 10:43 am
OTOH, he arguably the best opposition leader in Australian history. He should continue to play to his strengths.
Peter Patton
3 Sep 10 at 10:44 am
CL
I was astronomy which underpinned both the scientific revolution itself, but particularly pure math; and it is the discoveries in pure math which drive your blogging.
Peter Patton
3 Sep 10 at 10:47 am
Primarily because he is the anti-christ of liberalism.
Yes as his bans on alcopops, smoking, boobs, gambling, net filters etc. would all point to. You are a first rate pillock if you can’t see which side is the threat to liberalism.
Infidel Tiger
3 Sep 10 at 10:48 am
Copernicus spent trillions on satellites and probes did he, Steve?
Did they teach you that in state school?
C.L.
3 Sep 10 at 10:49 am
Primarily because he is the anti-christ of liberalism.
This assertion has become legend.
dover_beach
3 Sep 10 at 10:50 am
RL
I didn’t say anything about “public servants” per se – I am more than prepared to accept there is a good case for overall trimming.
Peter Patton
3 Sep 10 at 10:54 am
IT
I doubt you even know what liberalism is.
Peter Patton
3 Sep 10 at 10:58 am
Liberalism is not accelerating when I see fools like you crossing the road.
Infidel Tiger
3 Sep 10 at 11:01 am
I didn’t say anything about “public servants” per se – I am more than prepared to accept there is a good case for overall trimming.
PP, if you read the article you linked to Abbott isn’t preparing to sack 1300 CSIRO scientists but rather simply not replacing those that retire or move on in the next two years as a consequence of his broader two-year public service staff freeze.
dover_beach
3 Sep 10 at 11:02 am
Yeah. Charming history, Peter. And a perfect illustration of the dumb boosterism of the astronomy hobby. Somewhere, in another gallaxy, there’s a multi-billion dollar probe taking photos of yet another insignificant blob of matter – which will be tarted up in colour and sold to the Sunday papers as ‘amazing’ and ‘incredible’. We might as well put a trillion dollars in Treasury bonds and shoot it into the sun. Einstein has his annus mirabilis without so much as a carnival rocket.
C.L.
3 Sep 10 at 11:02 am
I totally agree with Sinc on this.
Even the ‘purest’ and apparently most abstract research often turns out to generate high (and captureable) private returns
Examples of this happening tend to be very cherry-picked, and usually pre-date massive public funding.
daddy dave
3 Sep 10 at 11:05 am
Errata*: ‘We might as well take a trillion dollars in Treasury bonds and shoot it into the sun. Einstein had his annus mirabilis without so much as a carnival rocket.’
*With thanks to the Mars Rover for giving me the opportunity to participate in this here thread.
C.L.
3 Sep 10 at 11:05 am
IT
There is no issue of “crossing the road.” I am a swinging voter. In its current form the parliamentary wing of the Liberal Party is not a “liberal” party. The most liberal government Australia has ever had was the Hawkeating government.
Peter Patton
3 Sep 10 at 12:02 pm
CL you’re a refugee from the middle ages, waiting on the Second Coming as grounds to avoid investigations as to the nature of the universe, I am guessing. As soon as a government funded scientist comes up with time travel machine, I vote you go back there first.
steve from brisbane
3 Sep 10 at 12:09 pm
In its current form the parliamentary wing of the Liberal Party is not a “liberal” party. The most liberal government Australia has ever had was the Hawkeating government.
PP, why are you comparing the current Coalition with a historical incarnation of the ALP? And another, on what specific matters was that incarnation of the ALP more liberal than the current Coalition?
dover_beach
3 Sep 10 at 12:21 pm
Believe me, the amount of utterly useless research going on, on the government dime, in academic institutions here and in the US is vast.
But academics are getting very good at ‘sexing up’ their findings to make them sound like they’re more useful than they are.
daddy dave
3 Sep 10 at 12:26 pm
CL you’re a refugee from the middle ages, waiting on the Second Coming as grounds to avoid investigations as to the nature of the universe, I am guessing.
Yeah, lack of a trillion space program certainly held back Einstein, Steve. Good call.
You’re the protestant, by the way.
Catholics don’t get hung up on the Parousia.
If I did go back in time, I’m sure Copernicus and Galileo would enjoy sharing a laugh with me about a bloke called ‘Steve from Brisbane’ in the future who believes the world is about to drown in a warmening-caused Rapture.
C.L.
3 Sep 10 at 2:47 pm
Sinc, your statement about exclusion has very limited applicability in the real world of science and technology. IP protection is a joke. Generic medicine is but one example. Just look at what Japan and China are doing with science done in (and paid for) by the US and Europe.
If you have to pay millions to protect your IP across the globe, who will be investing?
Boris
3 Sep 10 at 6:24 pm
Boris – there is no evidence of under-investment in IP.
Sinclair Davidson
3 Sep 10 at 6:26 pm
“The most liberal government Australia has ever had was the Hawkeating government”
More likely to have been George Reid’s Free Trade party in the first decade of politics, which was classical liberal in almost every policy. Only when Deakin’s Protectionists migrated over to them did we get the current “classical liberal/conservative” coalition we see in today’s Liberal party.
Quentin George
3 Sep 10 at 6:45 pm
No need for pure research? Actually in biomedicine there is a tremendous need. There is hardly a week goes by that I do not encounter research findings that cannot be explained with our existing concepts and theories.
People need to understand that without pure research science comes to a standstill, which will eventually have big impacts on technology. More importantly, I get the impression that people think research is just about “completing the program” by extrapolating from and using our current understanding. This is a completely mistaken view of how science progresses.
The only thing stopping private organisations conducting fundamental research is that you can’t make a buck out of it. The market cannot provide sufficient motivation to conduct this research. Human curiousity can.
By way of example, I just emailed this off to my list:
——
Hey Troops,
Given the effect on epidermal growth factor(EGR in the article) this raises the possibility it has carcinogenic potential beyond skin cancer. Throat, gut and lungs ??? Impossible to assess risk but probably prudent to stop using pain killers that rely on capsaicin. The high COX 2 levels are very worrying because it is a rate limiting enzyme in inflammation. High COX 2 is an invitation to cancer, dementia, systemic inflammation, and cardiovascular disease.
I’ve seen this again and again and again. Eg. Earlier this week, a study highlighting how bioflavinoids can induce DNA damage yet these are regarded as great antioxidants.
The concepts are inadequate, there is no valid theoretic structure, we are still stumbling about in the dark, we need more foundational research because until such time as we address these conceptual and theoretic issues we are all too often pissing in the wind.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100902121057.htm
Capsaicin Can Act as Co-Carcinogen, Study Finds; Chili Pepper Component Linked to Skin Cancer
John H.
3 Sep 10 at 6:46 pm
Sinc, how many of your IP have been pattented or protected (excluding copyright)?
Boris
3 Sep 10 at 8:42 pm
Correction: how much of your IP…
Boris
3 Sep 10 at 8:45 pm
Quentin George
As I make no claim to expertise in the minutiae and intrigue of tensions between “classical” liberals and non-classical liberals circa 1905, I shall defer to your judgment on this matter, and rephrase my claim thus.
Apart from those halcyon days of the George Reid Free Traders, the most liberal government Australia has ever had was the Hawkeating government.
Peter Patton
3 Sep 10 at 8:54 pm
Hopefully none.
Sinclair Davidson
3 Sep 10 at 9:29 pm
Boris – see this and this.
Sinclair Davidson
3 Sep 10 at 9:31 pm
Apart from some unavoidable financial reforms (flagged by Howard’s Campbell Report), Hawke and Keating did nothing particularly epochal as regards a classical liberal agenda. They entrenched an anti-liberal corporatist modus vivendi at the epicentre of the political economy throughout their term. Keating indeed felt compelled to scramble to become a liberalising lion when he assumed the prime ministership in the early 90s. The best he could do was read Don Watson’s Redfern oration – which was filled with sanctimonious poppycock. His sycophancy towards General Suharto was a national embarrassment for which Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s amity with old Pretoria is the only serviceable comparison.
C.L.
3 Sep 10 at 11:04 pm
“Hopefully none.”
Sinc, doesn’t it follow then that your research results are public goods?
Boris
4 Sep 10 at 8:29 pm