4 ms·

I am greatly disturbed by the fact that the vast majority of research funding comes from the government. In art the artist caters to his patron...

jballanc 18y ago
In art the patron knows the artist. In the government funding of research, the government picks people (heads of NIH, NSF, etc.) who then pick people (division heads) who then pick people from the community (study sections) who then choose from among their peers who gets funding... ...I'd say it's probably the least politicized thing the government does.
- patio11 18y ago
  I'd say it's probably the least politicized thing the government does I don't know if I'd describe the grant approval process as a-political, especially after hearing my professors describe how it operates on a nuts and bolts level. There is probably a salient difference between Congress, the grant committee reviewing AI research proposals, and a gang of chimpanzees doing grooming and dominance games. An alien race unfamiliar with primates might conclude that the difference is how many fleas are killed in each activity.
  - dhimes 18y ago
    There is probably a salient difference between Congress, the grant committee reviewing AI research proposals, and a gang of chimpanzees doing grooming and dominance games. An alien race unfamiliar with primates might conclude that the difference is how many fleas are killed in each activity. That's one of the best lines I've ever read. Your real name is PJ O'Rourke, isn't it? :)
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- bokonist 18y ago
  Having that kind of selection process is recipe for politicalization and bureaucratization. This article is my favorite treatment of the subject: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/tryfon-tolides-almost-pure-empty-poetry.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/tryfon-...
light3 18y ago
Exceptions to this include the nuclear bomb :p
biohacker42 18y ago
As I proud libertarian I find it hard to justify the case for EVERYTHING to be privately funded. Take things like railroads which pay back the investment in them in 100+ years. Usually the cost of borrowing is a function of how much risk there is. Here's where things get interesting, how many private companies can you name that have been around for over 100 years? Yes, I now there are dozen of companies older then that, but all those dozens world wide are still just exceptions. In general almost no companies last that long. So the risk for private borrowing over 100 years would make the interest way too high for anything. But governments can borrow at very reduced rates, and that's why they can build railroads profitably. The same argument can be made with basic science. We know most of the research will not yield anything, while a small part of it will in the long term create thing we can't even imagine. But those things my not necessarily be profitable, think airlines which are a terrible business to be in. So the government is like a basic science VC that knows 999999999999 out of 999999999999+2 investments will fail, but 1 will change the world. And private VCs can't do the same because the risk is too high and the payback takes too long. I think bridges and roads should be privatized, just look at France. But I'm not so sure about rails and basics science.
- anamax 18y ago
  > Here's where things get interesting, how many private companies can you name that have been around for over 100 years? A company doesn't have to last 100 years to profitably make 100 year investments because investments can be sold. Note that companies think that they will be around in 100 years so, the fact that most won't doesn't enter into their thinking. However, that illusion/delusion isn't necessary. Old folks plant trees that won't bear fruit until after said old folks will probably be dead.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  I'm not sure it's a good idea to be making 100 year investments: many such investments will turn out to be investments in a 100 year buggy whip factory. Consider, for instance, passenger rail to Detroit, Gary or Buffalo (in 1900). Note: I'm not expressing an opinion on whether basic science qualifies, I'm too biased (my salary comes from an NSF grant). I'm just questioning the assumptions.

jballanc 18y ago

In art the patron knows the artist. In the government funding of research, the government picks people (heads of NIH, NSF, etc.) who then pick people (division heads) who then pick people from the community (study sections) who then choose from among their peers who gets funding... ...I'd say it's probably the least politicized thing the government does.

patio11 18y ago
I'd say it's probably the least politicized thing the government does I don't know if I'd describe the grant approval process as a-political, especially after hearing my professors describe how it operates on a nuts and bolts level. There is probably a salient difference between Congress, the grant committee reviewing AI research proposals, and a gang of chimpanzees doing grooming and dominance games. An alien race unfamiliar with primates might conclude that the difference is how many fleas are killed in each activity.
- dhimes 18y ago
  There is probably a salient difference between Congress, the grant committee reviewing AI research proposals, and a gang of chimpanzees doing grooming and dominance games. An alien race unfamiliar with primates might conclude that the difference is how many fleas are killed in each activity. That's one of the best lines I've ever read. Your real name is PJ O'Rourke, isn't it? :)
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
bokonist 18y ago
Having that kind of selection process is recipe for politicalization and bureaucratization. This article is my favorite treatment of the subject: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/tryfon-tolides-almost-pure-empty-poetry.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/tryfon-...

light3 18y ago

Exceptions to this include the nuclear bomb :p

biohacker42 18y ago

As I proud libertarian I find it hard to justify the case for EVERYTHING to be privately funded. Take things like railroads which pay back the investment in them in 100+ years. Usually the cost of borrowing is a function of how much risk there is. Here's where things get interesting, how many private companies can you name that have been around for over 100 years? Yes, I now there are dozen of companies older then that, but all those dozens world wide are still just exceptions. In general almost no companies last that long. So the risk for private borrowing over 100 years would make the interest way too high for anything. But governments can borrow at very reduced rates, and that's why they can build railroads profitably. The same argument can be made with basic science. We know most of the research will not yield anything, while a small part of it will in the long term create thing we can't even imagine. But those things my not necessarily be profitable, think airlines which are a terrible business to be in. So the government is like a basic science VC that knows 999999999999 out of 999999999999+2 investments will fail, but 1 will change the world. And private VCs can't do the same because the risk is too high and the payback takes too long. I think bridges and roads should be privatized, just look at France. But I'm not so sure about rails and basics science.

anamax 18y ago
> Here's where things get interesting, how many private companies can you name that have been around for over 100 years? A company doesn't have to last 100 years to profitably make 100 year investments because investments can be sold. Note that companies think that they will be around in 100 years so, the fact that most won't doesn't enter into their thinking. However, that illusion/delusion isn't necessary. Old folks plant trees that won't bear fruit until after said old folks will probably be dead.
yummyfajitas 18y ago
I'm not sure it's a good idea to be making 100 year investments: many such investments will turn out to be investments in a 100 year buggy whip factory. Consider, for instance, passenger rail to Detroit, Gary or Buffalo (in 1900). Note: I'm not expressing an opinion on whether basic science qualifies, I'm too biased (my salary comes from an NSF grant). I'm just questioning the assumptions.