3 ms·

In the 1950s and 1960s many developed nations had national science programmes that were much more than they are now. They didn't always capitalise on them to be

In the 1950s and 1960s many developed nations had national science programmes that were much more than they are now. They didn't always capitalise on them to best effect (carbon fibre springs to mind here), despite having patents. Not always military either: Concorde, APT(Pendolino) and TGV, Ariane, hovercraft, nuclear etc. I'd link Wikipedia, but the entry on UK's National Research Development Corporation is comically short, and I can't find anything for the French equivalent on English wiki. Can't even remember the name of the equivalent US programme to link that. Nevertheless a lot of significant science and the products that stemmed from that, that wouldn't get done otherwise, came with government funding. It's a good part of the positive image of science in the immediate post war years. I would love to see some of those huge blue sky national science projects make a return. EDIT: Atrocious grammar.

jawns 8y ago
I don't think the concern is about government funding of science. I think the concern is about all science funding being funneled through the government. O'Connor says science should be funded either by "the government or some kind of body held to very high standards of not being influenced by industry" -- as if the government isn't influenced! Weatherall floats the idea of "taking the money [private organizations] would be spending and redirecting it [through taxes] to an organization that was selecting who was getting funded independently." In my mind, government funding is at least as capricious as industry funding. Government budgets related to science research get slashed all the time for reasons totally unrelated to the quality of the work being performed or its potential impact on society. So I think you can both be very strongly in favor of government funding of these national science projects (e.g. NASA) and yet very reluctant to have the government be the sole arbiter of what gets funded.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  It's not easy. Particularly for the US where NASA gives the only sizeable national science programme remaining. In the UK, and others, most of what there was got privatised. What's left is fractional contributions to ESA, CERN etc. Much less by percentage of GDP, leaving nearly all to be done by the private sector. Thing is, I suspect government in the 1960s could have set up an independent body to oversee science funding, that actually was independent, and had a level of trust by both scientists and the public. On both sides of the Atlantic, by either political party, though my knowledge of US is somewhat more limited. Today? I don't think I, or pretty much anyone, trusts either public or private. What's left? A BDFL? Well, first find the benevolent dictator I suppose, few of the current crop are benevolent. At which point I don't know how to fix it.

jawns 8y ago

I don't think the concern is about government funding of science. I think the concern is about all science funding being funneled through the government. O'Connor says science should be funded either by "the government or some kind of body held to very high standards of not being influenced by industry" -- as if the government isn't influenced! Weatherall floats the idea of "taking the money [private organizations] would be spending and redirecting it [through taxes] to an organization that was selecting who was getting funded independently." In my mind, government funding is at least as capricious as industry funding. Government budgets related to science research get slashed all the time for reasons totally unrelated to the quality of the work being performed or its potential impact on society. So I think you can both be very strongly in favor of government funding of these national science projects (e.g. NASA) and yet very reluctant to have the government be the sole arbiter of what gets funded.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
It's not easy. Particularly for the US where NASA gives the only sizeable national science programme remaining. In the UK, and others, most of what there was got privatised. What's left is fractional contributions to ESA, CERN etc. Much less by percentage of GDP, leaving nearly all to be done by the private sector. Thing is, I suspect government in the 1960s could have set up an independent body to oversee science funding, that actually was independent, and had a level of trust by both scientists and the public. On both sides of the Atlantic, by either political party, though my knowledge of US is somewhat more limited. Today? I don't think I, or pretty much anyone, trusts either public or private. What's left? A BDFL? Well, first find the benevolent dictator I suppose, few of the current crop are benevolent. At which point I don't know how to fix it.