There are lots of things people acknowledge government shouldn't fund. Successful companies. Hitler monuments. Gigli II. Uh....
Ok so that's about where it stops.
But of all things one group or another demands we drop, pure research is something that's hard to defend cutting because it's benefits are so uncertain. Thus the NPR report I heard today that criticized Mr. Bush's recent budget cuts on NASA and the National Science Foundation.
The report opened with how pure theory of Einstein's general theory of relativity is used to make GPS work. The theory tells us that as stuff goes faster, time for that thing goes slower. Since GPS satellites orbit so quickly, they are equipped with special clocks that literaly use a different unit of time to keep in accordance with its terrestial customers. We never know how science will help us, the report concluded (and that is true), thus government has to fund science (here I have a problem).
Let us set aside the fact that Einstein didn't develop his theory at NASA or the NSF. Hell, he didn't even create it in America. The lecture was given in 1915, after he worked at the University of Zurich and the University of Prague. He didn't move to the US until the 1930s. (Even if we assume these are goverment-funded institutions (Zurich is; I'm not sure about Prague), many other universities of equal or greater prestige are not. Indeed, since private schools offer greater freedom, most universities prefer to go private, assuming they could get the funds.)
Government funded science simply isn't neccessary for a well functioning economy. Private firm innovation, X-Prize style contests and academic research easily fill the gap. And even if some great idea for some ungodly reason isn't realized because of a lack of government funding, that doesn't mean we won't benefit from it eventually.
Suppose Einstein really needed public money to develop the theory (maybe money becomes enchanted with some brain-enhancing invisible wave if it's taken as tax dollars). Decades later, the first GPS satellites go in orbit and the firms realize something is very strange. The times between here and space aren't in sink. After intense research and theorizing, they come upon Einstein's conclusion anyway. No public money spent. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Would it have taken longer? Sure would, but we wouldn't have had to fund all those projects that concluded really intersting stuff though wouldn't have a practical value for decades to come. And we could have used that money to make our world better today.
It's like when people say the $118 billion (2000 dollars) that NASA spent on the Apollo program was worth it until I point out that money probably could have been used to make huge leaps in fighting cancer.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Without Einstein and Relativity, the firm responsible for putting those satellites into orbit would have almost certainly gone bankrupt. Satellites are prohibitively expensive, and to put a bunch of nonfunctional ones into orbit is the kind of thing that gets even NASA into trouble.
So if relativity doesn't fall into the category of government-funded research, what does? Look at virtually any American nobel prize winner, and you'll find government money. The REU program, a fantastically sucessful program for giving undergrads research experience, is an NSF program. Heck, the entire field of rocket science was government-controlled.
"Government funded science simply isn't neccessary for a well functioning economy."
Well, no, not directly. But government-funded science contributes a fantastic amount to the scientific and technical community. It contributes incentive and material to scientific endeavors that might not have any direct industrial purpose, but that will undoubtedly be utilized in industry eventually.
"It's like when people say the $118 billion (2000 dollars) that NASA spent on the Apollo program was worth it until I point out that money probably could have been used to make huge leaps in fighting cancer."
Perhaps that's true, but the technology available and the knowledge necessary for fighting cancer wasn't there at the time of Apollo. Back then, they were still using WWII-style mustard gases to fight cancer. Cancer also wasn't beginning to come into public focus at the time. Investing that money into the system of the time, coupled with public disinterest compared with space, would have been foolish.
Also, the best innovations in science haven't been made in a commercial setting. Lack of transparency, fear of the loss of a competitive edge, all of these things run contrary to the open, public nature of science. Nobody ever won a nobel prize (with the notable exception of Fritz Haber) by trying to sell more books/pants/GPS units. Commerce draws from science, not the other way around.
Well, we don't know if the firm would have gone bankrupt or not. But even if it had, another firm would've picked it up from there if that firm didn't (as the airlines teach us, just because one goes bankrupt doesn't mean one disappears).
Just because government funded technology yeilds benefits, doesn't mean that's the only way to get those benefits. Yes, pure research is risky. Yes, it's expensive. But it is for those very reasons that government funding so easily crowds it out. It doesn't mean private organizations don't do it or governments have to to get it done. Not that many Nobel prize winners teach or did their grad work at private institutions.
"It contributes incentive and material to scientific endeavors that might not have any direct industrial purpose, but that will undoubtedly be utilized in industry eventually."
Unless you have a time machine, you don't know that they will have application and even if it does, it again doesn't mean that private funding won't get there. Let us remember there are several disadvantages to public funding.
-You are more subject to political perceptions (it's hard to get funding for stem cell research, for example).
-You are less independent; politicians become your boss and by extension, you might have to play politics with your conclusions.
-You are subject to administration changes who's funding and priorities can wreck havoc on research plans that span decades.
"but the technology available and the knowledge necessary for fighting cancer wasn't there at the time of Apollo."
Considering we knew nothing about the Moon when the Apollo program started, it would be foolish to think that the same kind of advancement wouldn't have happened in cancer treatment.
"Also, the best innovations in science haven't been made in a commercial setting."
That's a rather bold claim and it simply doesn't hold. While the term "best" is subjective, the reality is most innovations of the past century have occured in mixed environments. Usually, it starts out as military (for the basic idea) and then moves to commerical application (adding all those thousands of equally vauable improvements). Microwaves, internet and microprocessors are the more famous examples.
I'll defend government military funding; it's necessary for national security. But in light of that funding, we don't need to pay people taxpayer money to just sit around, think and spend more looted dollars.
Post a Comment