Juan non-Volokh and David Bernstein 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, I reckon that Bernstein and non-Volokh have their argument cut out for them.
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.
Dumbest. Suggestion. Ever. (The non-Volokhs, not you.) Should the government cease funding particle accelerators in case they become politicized?
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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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).
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.
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.
…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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
William: mine was a negative rather than a positive query. Thanks for the tip. I’ll use it.
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.
Tim: For future reference, if:
…it almost certainly won’t start with the word “incidentally”. More likely, it’ll start with Tim, you ignorant slut, or something like that.
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.
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.
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!)
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?
Also, considerable basic science takes place at private universities with limited or no public funding.
That was a joke right?
djw: What part of “So while it’s fair enough to criticize his suggestion” was unclear?
williestyle: No, it’s not.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Shelby, sorry—fast, bad reading.
“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.
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!
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…
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review