Cancel Register Now Reset Password?
Advocates for Self Government Logo

1010 N Tennessee St
Suite 215
Cartersville, GA
30120-8528

Phone

(770) 386-8372

Fax

(770) 386-8373

Orders & Donations

(800) 932-1776

Quick Contact

info@theadvocates.org

Sign up for our Liberator Online Newsletter

The Liberator Online is full of expert tips and libertarian discussion. It’s the best way to stay current on breaking libertarian news.





Feed_icon_large

How can we fund scientific research without government?

Published May 16, 2012 in Short Answers by Mary Ruwart

QUESTION: I am greatly in agreement with libertarianism principles, but as a college student preparing for a career in the hard sciences, I can't help but question one issue: scientific research. How would a libertarian society address such issues as scientific research of a purely academic nature at a scale that cannot necessarily be carried out at a university level? Without government-funded laboratories, how do we fuel new research of such a nature that would be inherently unprofitable to any private enterprise?
 
ANSWER: In his 1996 book The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, Terence Kealey presents evidence that only 10% of new technology comes from academic (government-funded) research. He also finds that increasing funds for government research tends to depress privately-funded efforts, resulting in a net loss of new scientific progress. 
 
In other words, government funding of research, like most forms of aggression, backfires. 
 
Kealey writes: If this book has a message, it is this: relax. Economic, technical and scientific growth are free lunches. Under laissez faire they just emerge, like grass after the rain, through the efforts of individual entrepreneurs and philanthropists. Once the State has initiated the rule of law and sensible commercial legislation, the goodies will flow -- and laissez faire is morally superior to dirigisme [strong government control of society] as it maximises the freedoms and responsibilities of the individual.”
 
My own experience in 25-plus years of both industrial and academic research supports Kealey’s findings.
 
Kealey’s book is out of print, but he makes the same point in an excellent short commentary published by the Cato Institute entitled “End Government Science Funding.”
 
That article begins: “The big myth about scientific research is that government must fund it. The argument is that private companies will not fund science, especially pure science, for fear that their competitors will ‘capture’ the fruits of that investment. Yet, in practice, companies fund pure science very generously, and government funding displaces private research money.” 
 
Kealey explores that point, and concludes: “Scientists may love government money, and politicians may love the power its expenditure confers upon them, but society is impoverished by the transaction.”
 
If a libertarian society didn't have a Brookhaven National Laboratory or a Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider, it would most likely have something that was more highly valued by society at that point in time. Who knows, you might even like it better!


Dr. Ruwart's outstanding books Healing Our World and Short Answers to the Tough Questions are available at the Advocates Liberty Store.


Showing 6 Comments

Pubilshed May 17, 2012 by Paul

Gravatar I just saw scientific funding mentioned on the TV news the other day (My parents had it on). I was thinking the same thing! You know, out of self interest - I'm just naturally curious how to cure cancer - I don't want family members dying of it. We can all get funding for this privately, because people will have more money to donate anyway in a libertarian society with less taxes and more freedom (which equals more prosperity, as long as people work hard). If a business wants a new technology, they will fund research. Scientists won't have the "free money", as mentioned above, which gives them the privilege to fail. If they don't produce results, they're out! The free market is glorious.

Pubilshed May 20, 2012 by skt

Gravatar i don't know about this, if we just trust the market to fund science, whose to say the research would go in any meaningful direction? i don't mind spending a little bit of my paycheck if it gets results. and don't hog the wall Paul

Pubilshed May 25, 2012 by RJ

Gravatar haha...my school is partnered with BNL. Personally I would prefer to see it privatized than just torn down, it'd be like having to start from scratch...that place is huge... I'm libertarian but (for the most part) I am not opposed to state- or local-level subsidizing of education, either (which seems to be more or less where Ron Paul stands as well); if you are subsidizing education, keep in mind higher education institutions are commonly large centers of research in academia, in which case it is still government-subsidized research... As far as stuff like the NIH though -- no. they're basically being very limited by relying on gov't. funding if you ask me...and hence also should be privatized (and are also HUGE!)

Pubilshed July 18, 2012 by Nathan Alexander

Gravatar Corporations have a track record of funding pure science. Look up the exciting story story of fractals and Mandelbrot who made significant contributions while employed by IBM.

Pubilshed August 12, 2012 by 4 Freedom

Gravatar @skt You are assuming that the government will choose what you feel is a meaningful direction. Wouldn't you rather make a donation to a school or a charity that YOU feel will make meaningful choices verses having the government decide?

Pubilshed September 10, 2012 by 29874

Gravatar A lot of science is done through brute-force methods. Genetics is a great example of this. There is so little hope of knowing exactly what a gene will do just by studying potential products and interactions of those products with other gene products, so genes are simply deactivated, one at a time, to figure out what the result is. Getting results in Paul's view would imply that results are ready and willing to be produced, even if technological innovations prevent those discoveries from occurring. Discovery happens at a pace, and making scientists believe that failure is not an option is wrong. Failure is built into the scientific method, and it's served the scientific community quite well. Also, how would the average citizen necessarily feel about donating to science? Most people are not well-versed in science because it's difficult, and careers in the sciences often do not pay well, pushing away even more people. How will a person donate to something that he or she does not understand? If the government wasn't funding science, few people would. Public funding still remains king in my eyes because private funding's motivation still lies within turning a profit. Scientists can collaborate using publicly-released information and not risk wasting time and effort doing the same project at the same time under private firms. Plus, private firms are going to be loathe to disseminate their discoveries, making collaboration difficult in the first place. Again referring to Paul's comment, he mentions curing cancer. I'm curious to note whether or not he would have donated to the Human Genome Project, because that was the single-greatest undertaking in modern genetics. It started out as pure science, but quickly gave rise to GMO and transgenic research, which have benefited society beyond measure. Of course, it's now being aggressively used to understand cancer mechanics, but I believe that sequencing the genome was at the forefront of the project, rather than its applied benefits. There are easier ways to study cancers than through going through the whole genetic code, nucleotide by nucleotide.

Add Comment

You commenting as a guest Sign in

Get your own Gravatar

Advocates for Self-Government 1010 N Tennessee St Suite 215 Cartersville, GA 30120-8528 Phone (770) 386-8372 Fax (770) 386-8373 Orders & Donations (800) 932-1776

Contents copyrighted © The Advocates for Self-Government, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization. Donations tax-deductible in U.S. All rights reserved.

Powered by Blacksnow Media