Junk science

by Henry Farrell on March 4, 2004

“Juan non-Volokh”:http://volokh.com/2004_02_29_volokh_archive.html#107834026231790507 and “David Bernstein”:http://volokh.com/2004_02_29_volokh_archive.html#107820064555793050 suggest that the recent brouhaha over the Bush administration politicization of science is only to be expected; whenever the government funds scientific research, it’s liable to get politicized. Their proposed alternative – a “separation of science and state.” This proposal rests on an implicit claim that is, to put it kindly, contestable: that scientific research on politically topical issues is liable to be less politicized when it’s funded by the private sector. Judging by the sober and disinterested contributions to the public scientific debate coming from junkscience.com, Tech Central Station, and, in an earlier era, the good old “Council on Tobacco Research”:http://www.prwatch.org/improp/ctr.html, I reckon that Bernstein and non-Volokh have their argument cut out for them.

{ 36 comments }

1

Matt 03.04.04 at 8:07 pm

If the scientific research in question has implications about the way people live, then the process of deciding what to do about the scientific results -should- be politicized– after all, politics is how we decide such questions.

The problems come in when you get political support for bad science; re: Lysenko et. al.

2

Walt Pohl 03.04.04 at 8:44 pm

Dumbest. Suggestion. Ever. (The non-Volokhs, not you.) Should the government cease funding particle accelerators in case they become politicized?

3

John Quiggin 03.04.04 at 8:57 pm

This was pretty silly. Most of the complaints aren’t really about interference with research but about political interference in the preparation of scientific reports as inputs to the policy process, and there is no way the government can get out of this business. It’s like concluding that the solution to the WMD intelligence fiasco is to privatise the CIA.

Of course, the real motive of the posts was to claim (falsely) that Bush is no worse than Clinton, or any other administration, in this respect.

4

Shelby 03.04.04 at 9:44 pm

John:

Juan says, “The point is not that Democrats are any worse than Republicans on this score. Rather, … when government decisions rest on scientific determinations, and government agencies are overseeing the science, it is inevitable that such scientific determinations will become politicized to some degree.”

That sounds to me like he’s not particularly interested in comparing the parties’ relative merits on this score, just pointing out that politicization is inevitable in these situations.

And David’s initial comment was responding to apparent suggestions that there should be libertarian outrage at a result that libertarians would expect to occur. I read his suggestion for separation of state and science to be a coda to that comment, not its main point.

5

Cap'n Arbyte 03.04.04 at 9:46 pm

If politicization of science is unavoidable, wouldn’t it still be better for it to be funded privately, so your taxes aren’t spent on programs you oppose?

6

WillieStyle 03.04.04 at 10:14 pm

Sigh, libertarians are so tiresome.

Could someone please tell me where all the private labs doing top notch basic research in practicaly any field are? With basic research, you make discoveries that won’t have practical (money making) applications for decades. What company short of a monopoly like Ma’ Bell could absorb such costs. You also provide the results of you investment essentialy free of charge to all your competitors. Why do we think that private entities would suddenly deside to give away research dollars for the greater good once government stopped funding basic research?

Furthermore, Mr. Bernstein’s argument that such poticizing of science is inevitable in politics doesn’t pass the stink test, particularly when one considers that:
-The level of political interference in science by this administration is unprecedented.
-There is a qualitative (not merely quantitative) difference in the level of Lysenkoism the Bush administration has indulged in.

7

nnyhav 03.04.04 at 10:37 pm

> Could someone please tell me where all the private labs doing top notch basic research in practicaly [sic] any field are?

Definitional question-begging here.

Anyway, Entrepeneurial Science.

And no sillier than separation of business and state. Or university and business. Or state and university. Or politics and state. Or …

Not to mention litigation-driven science (eg silicone breast implants).

8

WillieStyle 03.04.04 at 10:55 pm

Anyway, Entrepeneurial Science.

I’m confused. Is thise supposed to be evidence of private labs doing basic research that’s supposed to replace the government?
The article mentions a bunch of universities (all funded and regulated in large part by the government) trying to make money from commercial applications of their research.

Neither basic, nor an example of seperation of Science and State.

9

EKR 03.04.04 at 11:00 pm

Vis a vis top notch labs? CS has certainly sene it’s share, though that was more common back in the 70s and 80s.

Xerox PARC singlehandedly invented most of what you think of as the modern computer back in the 70s. Bell Labs invented the transistor, UNIX and Information Theory. DEC labs has also done some nice work.

10

Keith M Ellis 03.04.04 at 11:05 pm

…and it’s worth pointing out that PARC along with almost all other industrial basic research facilities are/have been retired or defunded.

So, your example cuts both ways.

11

Keith M Ellis 03.04.04 at 11:08 pm

Incidentally, Bernstein and non-Volokh are the two writers I attempt to elide from my VC experience. Unfortunately, I’ve only been able to get the cgi to accept one exclude. Thus, VC has remained too toxic for me to read for some time now.

12

WillieStyle 03.04.04 at 11:17 pm

Xerox PARC singlehandedly invented most of what you think of as the modern computer back in the 70s.

I’m not sure what that means but semicunductor and VLSI research has always been driven at the cutting edge by government funding (especially the millitary). Hell for the first two decades after the MOSFET was invented, the government was practically the only customer.

Bell Labs invented the transistor, UNIX and Information Theory.

Bell Labs the is the glowing exception I already mentioned in my first post. Without the Bell monopoly, however, Lucent has certainly seen better days.

13

Matt Weiner 03.04.04 at 11:42 pm

This is much worse than you think. Read Kevin Drum on the “Data Quality Act,” which says that gov’t funded studies must be reviews only by independent scientists–which means scientists not funded by the government–which means scientists in the industries being studied. (You thought someone else was funding science?) Sayeth Kevin,

The net result of the DQA is to reduce the influence of academic scientists and increase the influence of industry-backed scientists under the Alice in Wonderland notion that academic scientists are somehow less trustworthy. In plain English, scientists who work for tobacco companies ought to be the ones to review cigarette research and scientists who work for chemical companies ought to be the ones to pass judgment on environmental research.

So Bernstein and Non-Volokh are actually promoting the problem rather than promoting a solution to it. If they said “The government shouldn’t do anything,” that would be one thing. To say “The government should do things, but should only gather information from industry-funded scientists,” is outrageous.
(More by Anthony Robbins. Chris Mooney seems to have been all over this, but his permalinks are not just broken but smashed.)

14

tim 03.04.04 at 11:44 pm

“Incidentally, Bernstein and non-Volokh are the two writers I attempt to elide from my VC experience. Unfortunately, I?ve only been able to get the cgi to accept one exclude. Thus, VC has remained too toxic for me to read for some time now.”

That adds a lot to the debate on the politicization of science, speaking of toxic contributors.

Is it not possible for you to enter a discussion without resorting to ad hominem? Are you just not interested in trying?

15

Shelby 03.04.04 at 11:51 pm

IBM continues to do important, basic work. To the extent private entities come up with something saleable, they can often patent it, which makes it publicly available (if not usable for ~20 years). One important problem is with failed science; sometimes there’s an incentive not to reveal your dead ends, so your competitors will pursue them and waste time.

Much basic research in medical and biotech fields is in fact paid for by private industry, often conducted at public universities through private grants and partnerships. While advantageous in some ways, it’s led to the predicted problems of companies trying to prevent publication of data they consider a trade secret but that’s important to the university scientists’ careers.

Also, considerable basic science takes place at private universities with limited or no public funding. Some of what’s done at, e.g., Harvard is gov’t-funded, but they’ve made sure that their new stem-cell research has no federal dollars.

All in all, a mixed bag. It’s kind of a reverse tragedy-of-the-commons, with private entities declining much of the burden of basic research but reaping much of the benefit. Or, to the extent that gov’t research is as good as or better than what the private sector could produce (in the hypothetical absence of gov’t research) — it’s an argument for state funding.

16

EKR 03.05.04 at 12:00 am

Xerox PARC singlehandedly invented most of what you think of as the modern computer back in the 70s.

“I’m not sure what that means but semicunductor and VLSI research has always been driven at the cutting edge by government funding (especially the millitary). Hell for the first two decades after the MOSFET was invented, the government was practically the only customer.

It means that Ethernet, the laser printer, PostScript, WYSIWYG editing, and the windowing environment came out of Xerox, with some help from SRI (where the mouse was invented). Steve Jobs got the idea for the Lisa, which turned into the Macintosh, after visiting PARC.

17

William 03.05.04 at 12:17 am

Incidentally, Bernstein and non-Volokh are the two writers I attempt to elide from my VC experience. Unfortunately, I’ve only been able to get the cgi to accept one exclude.

I think you’re reacting a bit too strongly, but for what it’s worth the following link seems to work:
http://volokh.com/?bloggers=eugene,sasha,michelle,erik,philippe,davidp,jacob,russell,randy,tyler,stuart,benjamin.

18

Kramer 03.05.04 at 1:52 am

Shelby:

It’s probably worth noting that much of the private (which is to say of university origin) research dollars that places like Harvard can offer are very tightly tied up with their standing as a research institution which attracts ALOT of government funding.

Which is to say that the expectation by the administration of faculty (at least science/engineering faculty) is that they raise alot of non-university funds. Unless you happen to be in a field which has immediate commercial application (as you mention for biotech) this mostly means you’re applying for government grants , in addition to whatever funding you can get from the university.

19

Keith M Ellis 03.05.04 at 2:06 am

William: mine was a negative rather than a positive query. Thanks for the tip. I’ll use it.

20

DJW 03.05.04 at 2:30 am

Wow, I expect better from VC than siting Ron Bailey as an authority on matter scientific. He makes Bjorn Lomborg look quite fairminded and sensible.

21

Keith M Ellis 03.05.04 at 2:36 am

Tim: For future reference, if:

* I’m making an argument (I wasn’t); and thus it’s possible that

* I subsequently utilitize an ad hominem attack (I didn’t),

…it almost certainly won’t start with the word “incidentally”. More likely, it’ll start with Tim, you ignorant slut, or something like that.

22

Aaron Bergman 03.05.04 at 2:39 am

The comment by Berenstein really astounded me. Does he have any idea where science would be these days without NSF, DOE, DOD, NIH, or whatever funding? Companies generally fund directed research. Some places do have broad R&D departments, but there are vast areas of science that would never receive any funding if the government weren’t doing it. And not just fields like mine. What company would put up the Hubble Space Telescope? Who would build the LHC? Who would spend money on WMAP? I’ve got plenty more acronyms where those came from.

And even that aside, one can look in fields like biology and medicine where there is a copious amount of private funding, and still government funding is important for broad and basic research.

All of which just reinforces my belief that it is the rare libertarian who would actually want to live their ideals if presented with them.

23

Don P 03.05.04 at 2:45 am

Xerox PARC singlehandedly invented most of what you think of as the modern computer back in the 70s. Bell Labs invented the transistor, UNIX and Information Theory. DEC labs has also done some nice work.

Um, the modern computer is mostly microelectronics, magnetic and optical storage devices, and CRT or flat panel display devices. Xerox PARC didn’t invent any of those things. The miniaturization of electronics was driven mostly by government defense and space programs. The internet, which has probably done more to drive mass consumption of computing technology than any other single development, was also invented by the government, initially for the purpose of providing a resilient distributed communications network that would survive a nuclear attack.

24

Shelby 03.05.04 at 2:50 am

Aaron,

I think Bernstein was stating a common libertarian idealization — removing government funding from all but an irreducible few sectors (chiefly defense). It’s interesting to work out how these sectors would be affected in the long term by a reduction or elimination of tax funding, and it’s necessitated by the ideal of minimizing taxes (“theft”).

In any event, I know few libertartians who would start by cutting funds for basic research. There are many, more gratifying areas of state spending to attack. So while it’s fair enough to criticize his suggestion, I don’t think he was advancing it as a near-term political platform. (I’d say let’s not make too much of it, but I probably have made that mistake right here!)

25

DJW 03.05.04 at 3:45 am

shelby–huh? Because you suspect he wouldn’t actually advocate this plan right now or make it his top priority (both insights not readily apparent in orignal text, of course), it’s not fair to criticize him? How does that even begin to make sense?

26

WillieStyle 03.05.04 at 4:01 am

Also, considerable basic science takes place at private universities with limited or no public funding.

That was a joke right?

27

Shelby 03.05.04 at 5:38 am

djw: What part of “So while it’s fair enough to criticize his suggestion” was unclear?

williestyle: No, it’s not.

28

Zizka 03.05.04 at 5:39 am

Libertarians have a genius for zeroing in on the successes of government (e.g. free public education, the funding of scientific research, public health) and asserting why they are unsuccessful experiments and very bad things. They then offer to replace these government programs with untried sketches of experimental alternatives which they assure us will perform much, much better.

“Government never has been, and never will be, anything other than a scheme for transferring money from the pockets of the productive citizens to those of various parasite classes. Nothing positive has ever been accomplished by government.”

Obviously true, right? See how easy it is?

29

Shelby 03.05.04 at 7:33 am

Williestyle:

I should be more clear. “Also, considerable basic science takes place at private universities with limited or no public funding” refers to basic science ocurring with “limited or no public funding”, not private universities with, etc. My apologies if this was misleading.

30

des 03.05.04 at 9:58 am

Is there some way for those (not including me, good heavens, no) who loathe and despise the US to help finance Libertoonian think-tankery? Privately, but of course.

31

Rich Puchalsky 03.05.04 at 12:38 pm

This is where libertarians are really ill served by their stereotypical tendency towards ideological completism. They are very vulnerable towards being used as stalking horses by the right (or the left, if the left ever came into power). When the right wing dreams up something like “Let’s do all governmental science using scientists paid by the industries affected by regulation, and disguise this as general privatisation” libertarians can’t seem to disagree, because of course the Final Eventual Libertarian Master Plan has the government getting out of the science business. So they lose any ability to win people over with gradualism, and get associated with every obviously manipulative and shady plan to come down the pike.

32

GMT 03.05.04 at 2:24 pm

whenever the government funds scientific research, it’s liable to get politicized
Granted. But when the politics in question involve preying on the superstitions of primitive and ignorant people, it is no longer a matter of simple politicization.

The politics in question are openly hostile to science. That’s the difference, and that’s the reason for this “brouhaha.”

33

DJW 03.05.04 at 4:16 pm

Shelby, sorry–fast, bad reading.

34

Tom 03.05.04 at 6:59 pm

“Xerox PARC singlehandedly invented most of what you think of as the modern computer back in the 70s.”

A lot of that work (mouse, GUI, cut-and-paste) was borrowed from Doug Engelbart’s work on the Augmented Human Interface project at SRI in the late 1960s, sponsored by DARPA. When the funding dried up, Engelbart was shunted to Lockheed, and his key researchers moved to Xerox PARC.

So Xerox was building on work done within SRI under gubmint sponsorship. SRI itself is a non-profit independent research institute, so it’s in a twilight world between the private- and public- sector.

35

buffalo gal 03.05.04 at 9:28 pm

This discussion seems to assume that there is only a choice between government and business funding of research, ignoring the role of non-profit agencies. Much of Harvard’s funding for the stem cell research comes from a large non-profit agency, for example. The non-profits fund basic research much as the government agencies do, without a vested interest in secrecy or potential profit. I’m just pointing this out – it should please the libertarians!

36

Sean Kirby 03.06.04 at 10:20 pm

It’s been said that if the government directed reseach on Polio, we would have the best iron lung in the world, but no vaccine.

I’m just saying…

Comments on this entry are closed.