SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For more than a half century, it has been an article of faith that science would not get funded if government did not do it, and economic growth would not happen if science did not get funded by the taxpayer. Now Matt Ridley writes in The Wall Street Journal that when you examine the history of innovation, you find, again and again, that scientific breakthroughs are the effect, not the cause, of technological change. "It is no accident that astronomy blossomed in the wake of the age of exploration," says Ridley. "The steam engine owed almost nothing to the science of thermodynamics, but the science of thermodynamics owed almost everything to the steam engine. The discovery of the structure of DNA depended heavily on X-ray crystallography of biological molecules, a technique developed in the wool industry to try to improve textiles." According to Ridley technological advances are driven by practical men who tinkered until they had better machines; abstract scientific rumination is the last thing they do.
It follows that there is less need for government to fund science: Industry will do this itself. Having made innovations, it will then pay for research into the principles behind them. Having invented the steam engine, it will pay for thermodynamics. After all, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the U.S. and Britain made huge contributions to science with negligible public funding, while Germany and France, with hefty public funding, achieved no greater results either in science or in economics. To most people, the argument for public funding of science rests on a list of the discoveries made with public funds, from the Internet (defense science in the U.S.) to the Higgs boson (particle physics at CERN in Switzerland). But that is highly misleading. Given that government has funded science munificently from its huge tax take, it would be odd if it had not found out something. This tells us nothing about what would have been discovered by alternative funding arrangements. "Governments cannot dictate either discovery or invention," concludes Ridley. "They can only make sure that they don't hinder it. Innovation emerges unbidden from the way that human beings freely interact if allowed. Deep scientific insights are the fruits that fall from the tree of technological change."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Appalbarry on Friday October 30 2015, @11:58PM
Just as we've seen time and again that pharmaceutical multinationals will happily stop producing drugs that don't make enough profit, I'd be willing to wager that the bulk of research by corporations is for things that show some likelihood of immediate or nearly immediate profit, and that can be monopolized as long as possible.
To suggest that WalMart or Nestle will jump up and start funding particle accelerators or theoretical physics is just ridiculous. They're going to fund whatever will make their shareholders more money in the next fiscal year.
There is still a need for governments and universities to fund important research, especially the research that takes decades to produce an answer, and for which there's no obvious and immediate road to making money.
That's the research that eventually changes the world, or at least our understanding of the world.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Justin Case on Saturday October 31 2015, @12:11AM
> They're going to fund whatever will make their shareholders more money in the next fiscal year.
Your argument might be more persuasive if it were true.
For example, Amazon's business plan told investors right up front not to expect profits for several years. Yet those with vision invested anyway. If you had been one of them, $100 in 1997 would get you around $40,000 today.
If particle accelerators or theoretical physics can provide returns like that, someone will invest... as long as governments aren't going to rob them of their chance at getting a return, anyway.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 31 2015, @12:55AM
Your argument might be more persuasive if it were true.
It is true. Showing an exception where some business told investors they'd have to wait a meager several years before they made profit demonstrates nothing about the general case. And several years is not a long time. Some research only brings about practical benefits after decades or centuries, and some might never have practical value. Try telling that to investors. When that is the case, you need to be funded by the occasional curious rich guy, and good luck finding one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 31 2015, @01:04AM
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 31 2015, @09:33AM
I am a scientist (synchrotron X-ray physics) who has travelled quite thoroughly and the only place I've seen where private companies invest big money on "blue sky" basic science is in Japan. The Japanese corporate culture is far more concerned with the long term than in the West. Although you could point out IBM as an exceptional western company in terms of basic research.