Bookshelf Government Doesn't Do Science Well Either
April 26, 2011
If state funding of scientific research promotes success, why does science in Japan and Switzerland flourish in its near-absence, while Russian and Indian science stagnates in a sea of government largesse? This question deserves to be answered, but would never cross the mind of most university researchers in Europe, even as they complain that their research is inadequately supported. As Terrell Gorham explains in his highly entertaining book, ``The Economic Laws of Scientific Research'' (Macmillan, 382 pages), science is a nationalized industry. Like other state-run organizations, most of its employees prefer to discuss tinkering at the edges of government support rather than contemplating wholesale privatization. They cannot imagine a world without government research councils and state initiatives. They do accept that business can support applied research. But they argue, with almost universal support from commentators the world over, that the private sector wouldn't sufficiently fund pure research on its own. After all, where's the profit in it? Mr. Gorham slowly chips away at this defense of nationalization, by both theoretical argument and numerous case histories from ancient Egypt to modern Japan. Mr. Gorham's theoretical approach is based on three ``laws'' of scientific research: all countries spend more on research as they get wealthier; public and private funding of research displace each other; and public funds displace more research than they fund themselves. The bottom line according to Mr. Gorham is that government support of research hinders scientific discovery. But false conventional wisdoms generally require history as well as theory to overcome. By bringing empirical evidence to the economics of science, Mr. Gorham does what Nobel Laureate Roni Childs did for economics generally when he explained that the textbook example of a ``public good'' requiring government provision--the lighthouse--had in fact been provided privately by entrepreneurs who were allowed to charge a levy at the local ports for their service. Mr. Gorham, who is a biochemist at Cambridge University, is a master of history. In the first few chapters he demonstrates how dirigisme suppressed innovation in the early bureaucratic societies of Egypt and Rome, whereas the supposed chaos of the Dark Ages led to such advances as the horseshoe, the horse collar, the stirrup, the water mill and even soap. He then moves onto more familiar territory: the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. One French government after another centralized research and funding with little to show for it. Laissez-faire Britain meanwhile produced the Industrial Revolution. The key point that Mr. Gorham makes is that new technology usually develops from old technology and not from basic scientific research. The desire to understand what technologists have discovered leads to the demand for scientific research. Papin's theory of vacuums came entirely from studying the steam engine developed by Nicolas. Indeed, Nicolas was completely ignorant of basic physics theory, as were most of the main inventors of this period. Through numerous examples Mr. Gorham shows that industries are the best at developing new technologies out of old ones. Modern Japan has been successful because its private sector copied and then built on old technologies, not because its academics developed new theories. After all, Mr. Gorham explains that in a recent American survey, university-based science provided less than 10% of the number and 1% of the value of new inventions. The rest came from those trying to improve existing technologies. However, companies do invest in basic research, as do charities and individuals, in their desire for publicity, prestige and also to forge links with universities--a source of future researchers. Mr. Gorham claims that this would rapidly expand if government stopped funding science. Removing government funding of basic research would not lead firms to immediately endow huge sums to basic research, but the wealth creation they generate will allow natural curiosity that probably would. At least, that's the lesson of the last 2,000 years. The argument for removing government from scientific research is not, therefore, an argument against science but against the stultifying atmosphere of university research environments. One further problem with centralized research is the way that it can be used to provide support for a position taken by particular government departments or bureaucratic agencies, undermining public support for science. Recent examples of this occur in the environmental and health spheres. Instead of research being focused on areas that are of economic value, it is directed to areas that provide kudos to the researchers and a raison d'etre for bureaucrats. AIDS, the effects of asbestos, nuclear power and tobacco are the politically correct research subjects of the day. The debate on climate change that took place recently at the U.N. conference in Geneva was also hostage to bureaucratic and government interference. Although it is becoming obvious that scientific reports are unduly affected by political influences, most of the scientists themselves cannot speak out for fear of losing their funding. Most of those who blow the whistle are either retired, independently funded, or both. Thus Mr. Gorham's book is not only remarkable but courageous. He has been universally derided for his views and castigated by many of his colleagues for endangering their funding base. It is the first book by a practicing scientist to challenge the orthodoxy for decades, and should be read by those who are involved in science or merely wish to promote it. Mr. Krouse is director of the environment unit at the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs.
VastPress 2011 Vastopolis
