7 ms·
I see sentences like this one in more and more articles these days: > Dr. Simons now runs a tidy universe of science endeavors, financing not only math teacher
by hackuser 12y ago
I see sentences like this one in more and more articles these days:
> Dr. Simons now runs a tidy universe of science endeavors, financing not only math teachers but hundreds of the world’s best investigators, even as Washington has reduced its support for scientific research.
A predictable consequence of reducing government spending is that the population becomes dependent on, and concentrates power in the hands of, a few wealthy citizens. For example, I've read that if you need funding for research, you should seriously consider networking with the very wealthy. If you run a charity, probably you need to focus on the same. Will these patrons support academic freedom? An organization that challenges the social order? What if your research upsets someone; is your career/organization at risk? Will their ideas and whims serve the nation and world?
(I'm not criticizing of Simons' philanthropy; I'm against shrinking government investment in research and other social goods.)
- Tycho 12y agoThat's the way it should be, IMO. Government research leads to things like WMDs.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- AlexandrB 12y agoAlso penicillin and the smallpox vaccine, the internet - but you know, whatever...
- Tycho 12y agoSo? What's your argument?
- factorizer 12y agoDon't know what his argument was. Mine is: You're probably a troll and nobody should feed you.
- Tycho 12y agoI gave my opinion and labelled it as such.
- melling 12y agoCould you provide some data to support your opinion?
- Tycho 12y agoEvery WMD program in existence? The apparatus of our surveillance states? Private companies and wealthy individuals would not pusure these things because it would be illegal and also pointless. Only governments want and pursue stuff like this. Of course, plenty of government directed research and government funded research is positive, but the private sector is intertwined with all that (funding and execution) and it's not true to say just because the government funded something it wouldn't have happened otherwise. At the extreme you have states like USSR and North Korea that spend almost everything on ghastly projects.
- melling 12y ago"Government research leads to all things WMD" How does your post support this opinion?
- oafitupa 12y agoYeah, in the process of killing millions and all imaginable crimes against humanity, they did a few good things, no one denies that. But if you use those good things as your argument, that's known as the broken window fallacy.
- thecage411 12y agoThis has to be the most bizarre interpretation of the broken window fallacy I've read.
- oafitupa 12y agoActually it's very common. Try arguing with a soldier. Those guys are brainwashed into believing that the military helped humanity move forward technologically, as if spending that money directly in research (without the bombings, the deaths of millions, etc.) couldn't possibly have achieved the same, let alone much more (which is in fact more likely).
- spikels 12y agoAmazing how people simply make up facts to support their ideology. Both penicillin and smallpox vaccine were discovered with little if any government support. But you know, whatever...
- AlexandrB 12y agoNot being a historian, I actually read Wikipedia before posting that. I guess I was confused on the smallpox vaccines creation which seems to involve a lot of actors. What's certain however, is that the vaccine's dissemination and the eventual eradication of smallpox was pushed by the World Health Organization (part of the UN) and so was a government initiative. [1] Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming as part of research in a public institution (St. Mary's Hospital). [2] I guess my larger point (which you deftly avoided addressing) is that the government is not a boogeyman creating evil technologies nor does it have a monopoly on evil shit. I also have a hard time imagining a motive for a for-profit organization to eradicate a disease world-wide. Something that government organizations have achieved almost twice (polio is nearly wiped out). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennicilin#Discovery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennicilin#Discovery
- Tycho 12y agoSt Mary's Hospital was not government controlled or funded when Fleming was working there. It was one of the 'voluntary hospitals' supported by philanthropy and private donors. Furthermore, if you read the history of penicillin [1] you can see a long history of tinkering (meaning the discovery was somewhat inevitable) and that Pfizer, Inc. worked out how to mass produce it. But you know, whatever... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_penicillin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_penicillin
- dmix 12y agoThis does bring up a fair point, the military industrial complex is a massive funder of university grants. The creates a lot of ethical issue that are worth considering. The original comment listed some issues with free-market financing but gov backing is not suddenly more altruistic/fair because it's not coordinated by 'free-market' billionaires. There are many many billionaires (and billion-dollar companies) who influence what the gov invests in and a significant number of them come from the DoD side. It's even a problem among researchers in England: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david-mccoy/universities-must-resist-military-industrial-complex http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david-mccoy/universi...
- hackuser 12y ago> The original comment listed some issues with free-market financing but gov backing is not suddenly more altruistic/fair because it's not coordinated by 'free-market' billionaires. I agree (though I don't think it's a 'free market' in sense of the economic term of art), however the issue is political power and control. Do we want a few citizens to have that much influence over our society, such as deciding which good works get funded, and who gets the funding? What happens when a donor threatens to reduce funding for the local hospital if the city council passes a law that impacts the donor's business? Also, I tend to think the NSF will do a better (if not perfect) job of evaluating grant proposals than the random philanthropist. You are right that the wealthy already have outsized influence; that's not a reason to give them more.
- angersock 12y agoThe reason you're being downvoted is that your point (as read) seems to be "Well, .gov funds research that kills babies!" This is rubbish, because it also funds research that leads to medicine, better roads and health, the Internet, and all number of other things that are absolutely positive things. The balance is by far on the good, not the bad. Private research brought us things like the Maxim gun, the Gatling gun, most of the shitty food you can buy today, lots of unhealthy chemicals, and all sorts of other things. It's a comparison that, even if executed properly, is hard to make--and you failed to execute.
- Tycho 12y agoThe point is that private companies have no incentive to pursue things like wMD programs or PRISM. Only governments have that.
- mcguire 12y ago> or PRISM Google. Facebook.
- nickff 12y agoThose companies were complying with legal obligations, not eagerly helping the NSA collect any and all data because they were gung-ho.
- mcguire 12y agoNo, they are collecting data because that is how they make money. And I rather suspect that if you compare what the NSA knows about you, personally, with what th' Goog' knows, the NSA will come up well behind. I'm not trying to minimize what the NSA has done; what they do is supposedly done in our name, which is offensive, and they have more power than any company to do harm with what they collect, which is frightening. And I'm not trying to attack the companies; they have every right to what I give them, most of which is not private even if I would wish it to be, and they do provide useful services with that information. But if you are upset about an organization collecting information to use in some way that may be other than your best interest, the two are pretty equal.
- pessimizer 12y agoAlso, you'll probably get just as much or more money from patrons for fringe science than for actual science, and the patrons will have little ability to evaluate the quality of the results - putting more money in if the results align with their preconceived notions or business interests, and withdrawing funding otherwise. Basically, like the pharmaceutical and (petro)chemical industries currently are.
- waterlesscloud 12y agoWait, are you saying the pharmaceutical and petrochemical industries fund fringe science, and that they can't tell the difference?
- sedachv 12y agohttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/27/environment.science http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/27/environment.sci... http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-speed-of-hypocrisy-how-america-got-hooked-on-legal-meth http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-speed-of-hypocrisy-how-...
- exratione 12y agoNewsflash for you: in the fields I know (medical research), nearly every important early stage research project is funded by philanthropy. Government research dollars are only available to groups that have already done that early stage research and proven that the next step is incremental and low-risk. If medical research relied on government dollars, nothing much would happen except for wheel spinning at vast cost. It would be even more of a full employment program for connected research institutes than is already the case. That is not even to start on the fact that the existence of big government funding comes with the existence of the FDA, an entity that enormously increases the cost of research and development, outright blocks many lines of work, makes others so unprofitable as to scare away for-profit funding at all levels, and so on.
- bobcostas55 12y agoDo governments support academic freedom? An organization that challenges the social order? What if your research upsets someone; is your career/organization at risk? Will their ideas and whims serve their citizens and world? Look at that, asking pointed rhetorical questions is easy!
- clarkmoody 12y agoPerhaps the takeaway here is that the research is getting done despite reduced funding from government. Also, all of your questions regarding the motives of the wealthy should be asked of the government with equal scrutiny. After all, government is made up of individuals, each with his/her own level of bias and ideology.
- HSO 12y agoThis is a good point, one that I myself make in this type of situations. But… there is a difference in that democratically elected government officials or administrations are, at least in theory, obliged and answerable to the electorate. I think that is a good argument for keeping certain things in the public hand.
- clarkmoody 12y agoYou hit on an interesting angle: > democratically elected government officials ... answerable to the electorate The heads of the government agencies are appointed by the administration, and most (all?) other employees of the agencies are not. Thus, the only accountability of, say, the research funding administrators at NIH or NSF is to their immediate superiors. That is, they are far removed from the scrutiny of the electorate.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- specialist 12y agoAs a rule, government is more transparent and accountable than even publicly traded corporations. FOIA requests, meetings, hearings, transcripts, budgets, expenditures, rosters, etc. Of course, we should never stop criticizing government (aka democracy). But don't take it for granted either.
- hammock 12y ago>As a rule, government is more transparent and accountable than even publicly traded corporations. FOIA requests, meetings, hearings, transcripts, budgets, expenditures, rosters, etc. What might make governments even more accountable are the threats of loss of tax revenue (people and companies doing business elsewhere) and loss of campaign contributions. This is similar to how corporations are held accountable by shareholders (CEO compensation), employees (take their talents elsewhere) and customers
- mathattack 12y agoAn open question.... Are the scientific and philanthropic directions of wealthy individuals that much worse than our government? Remember - the US government doesn't fund stem cell research.
- Tloewald 12y agoThe fundamental problem here is the rise of anti-scientific sentiment in a large segment of the US population.
- mathattack 12y agoAll the more reason to take science out of the hands of the people they elect.
- BrandonMarc 12y agoThis kinda makes sense. If you don't want to be subject to the whims of the US taxpayer, or the corrupting influence of Congresscritters / K Street, then you need to go elsewhere (charities, individuals, businesses) to get funding for your research. Of course, educating taxpayers would be helpful, so they can make better decisions. Along with educating Congress critters, and as far as K Street goes, either finding sympathy (unlikely) or planning to send some of your money there (more likely to work). Compared to those 3 challenges, finding a benefactor sounds a whole lot easier!
- hackuser 12y agoUS government research funding decisions are made by scientists, not politicians or taxpayers. Also, I don't know that 'benefactors' are any less corrupt than politicians or lobbyists (if we can paint any group with such a broad brush).
- Tloewald 12y agoThe decisions are made by scientists, but they're subject to hard restrictions (e.g. no funding for stem cell research) and behind the scenes political pressure.
- danielweber 12y agoI see no reason that just because I run "a charity" that I should not have to work hard to justify to individual people with money that they should give that to me to continue my charitable works.
- FD3SA 12y agoWe are just reverting to the historical mean society: oligarchy. Just a few years back I was very optimistic that we would correct our course back to democracy, but a cursory review of history shows incontrovertible proof of our destination. Humans are primates, and primates fight viciously to form status hierarchies using any mechanism available to them. In the 21st century, that mechanism is capital. And its power and influence know no bounds. The brief democratic blip we witnessed was a result of three massive wars (WWI, WWII, Cold War) which forced cooperation from the oligarchs due to the threat of existential annihilation. The world is quite peaceful now, and with technology and globalization the average citizen has a severely reduced utility to the oligarchy. Hence, capital buys policy, and votes are meaningless. Capitalism dictates that one optimize one's own desires above all others ("Greed is good"). Economists are only now noticing the bitter aftertaste from the fruits of their labor. EDIT: I post this a lot, but just in case you've missed it, most of my conclusions come from Thomas Piketty's new book, Capital in the 21st Century.
- BrandonMarc 12y agoI'd argue that your argument about capital is correct, except it's not just the 21st century ... it's every century before that. Even in societies that aren't capitalist / democratic / free-market per se, it's the golden rule: the one with gold makes the rules (or, gets what they want). It's not always like that; just most of the time. I'm not saying that's good or bad; I'm just saying it's like gravity.
- BrandonMarc 12y agoWhether it's academia, government organs, charities, or other ... if you want funding for your research, you have to find someone who: a) has money, and b) is willing to finance your research. If research is done with tax money, it's understandable taxpayers will want a say in it, and their ever-changing whims will be reflected in what they choose to fund. Since this involves politicians, you can expect consequences in that direction (i.e. a political angle even when there needn't be one, involvement of K Street either for or against you, etc). If research is done with other resources, again, it's a matter of finding someone who has money and is willing to let you use it. So networking, and getting to know generous wealthy people, or wealthy people with a motive to give for a certain kind of research, is a smart way for someone in your org to spend time. This doesn't necessarily sound so bad; it sounds like it's simply the way the world works. Even Columbus - who financed his exploration with European monarch's money - had to justify it as financially worthwhile for them to do so.
- lexcorvus 12y agoA predictable consequence of reducing government spending is that the population becomes dependent on, and concentrates power in the hands of, a few wealthy citizens. It's worth noting in this context that the current system of government-funded science, which seems normal, in fact was invented more or less single-handedly by Vannevar Bush shortly after World War II. [1] The scenario that worries you was the norm for approximately the previous history of humanity. (This isn't to say governments never funded science, just that they didn't dominate it as the US Government does today.) Will these patrons support academic freedom? An organization that challenges the social order? What if your research upsets someone; is your career/organization at risk? Will their ideas and whims serve the nation and world? Every one of these questions applies with equal or greater force to government-funded science. Anyone worried that a private patron of science might, e.g., put his career at risk, should be a thousand times more afraid of the Feds. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush
- hackuser 12y ago> the current system of government-funded science, which seems normal, in fact was invented more or less single-handedly by Vannevar Bush shortly after World War II. [1] The scenario that worries you was the norm for approximately the previous history of humanity. The previous history of humanity isn't a standard that I think we should aspire to. It means no democracy, short lives, widespread brutality, open discrimination against most people, and not much investment in or success in the sciences. > Anyone worried that a private patron of science might, e.g., put his career at risk, should be a thousand times more afraid of the Feds. That's a strong claim. I don't agree subjectively; is there anything that backs it up? My impression from talking to people who apply for federal research grants is that it's tedious, time-consuming, but apolitical and based on merit.
- lexcorvus 12y agoThe previous history of humanity isn't a standard that I think we should aspire to. It means no democracy, short lives, widespread brutality, open discrimination against most people, and not much investment in or success in the sciences. It looks like you may be conflating several separate issues here. My point is that science seemed to work fine in, say, the period 1550–1950 without the NSF, NIH, etc., and it's not necessarily a disaster if we return to that model. We don't, at the same time, have to shorten lives, increase brutality, etc. (Democracy is a mixed bag at best, though; for example, in 1783 France was a troubled but basically functional absolute monarchy, and by 1793 it was a universal suffrage democracy that guillotined tens of thousands in the streets of Paris and bound books in leather made from human skin. [1]) [grant writing is] tedious, time-consuming, but apolitical and based on merit. Getting federal research grants is apolitical only if your subject is apolitical, and the list of apolitical scientific subjects gets shorter every year. There are whole fields of inquiry—exploring heritable cognitive differences (if any) as a function of ancestry, for example—that are essentially verboten, while others (e.g., stem-cell research and climate science) are impossible to separate from politics. Moreover, even apolitical fields are notoriously subject to the whims of (democratically elected) Congress. [1]: http://bit.ly/FrRevHL http://bit.ly/FrRevHL