As a scientist and a libertarian, I often struggle to find solutions that satisfy my seemingly adversarial worldviews. I say "seemingly" because I believe that the culture of academic science fails to think outside of the box when coming up with solutions and that sometimes the right thing to do isn't as pleasant to hear.
For instance, I'm often confronted with criticisms of my stance concerning the governmental funding of research. There are diseases out there that don't affect many people and these "orphan diseases" are not commonly researched by pharmaceutical companies because there is not a large enough market to justify the expense. Even without red tape from the FDA, getting a drug to market ethically would be expensive. Researchers who are interested in finding a treatment for this disease might appeal to the pharmaceutical company, but the incentives just aren't there. What happens next is where my scientist peers and I part ways:
"Let's get the government to fund this work!" A perfect solution! Except money doesn't come out of thin air, at least not without causing harm. The government pays for grants with taxes. In that case, people are involuntarily robbed "for the greater good". Most people are empathetic and would willingly help out someone in need. If you don't believe that the majority of people would do this, then how do you justify taking their tax dollars? Taxes aren't the only solution the government has up its sleeves. The Federal Reserve could just put more money into circulation and then it really does come out of thin air. This creates the larger problem of dollar devaluation and inflation (a leading cause of high gas prices, btw).
My solution is not as pretty. It is not as popular in academia. But my solution has the distinct advantage of not robbing anyone. Get the money to fund the research voluntarily, or don't do the research. Pharmaceutical companies get a bad rap for charging money for life-saving drugs. But at least they ask you to pay for the drugs. They never force you to buy the drugs or pay for drugs you don't need or use. Compared to the government, drug companies are saints.
But it's not as though scientists are encouraged to question this system of asking the thieves for some of the spoils. Rather, universities, research organizations, and professional science organizations actively advocate (read: "lobby") Congress for increased funding. The sad thing is, that this is a calculated investments in thousands to millions of dollars each year. Rather than spending more on research (which is a positive step), some of the money donated to these organizations is used to "lobby" for more federal funding. I assume the thousands to millions of dollars are just spent on airfare, food, and hotel stays, because giving donated money to senators and representatives would be too disgusting for me to contemplate.
Science is no place for sentimentality. By that, I mean that science progresses by maintaining skepticism toward hypotheses (remember, we are always trying to disprove our hypotheses). If one gets too attached to a pet theory or model, then one can no longer maintain that healthy skeptical objectivity. Scientists pride themselves on maintaining that critical view of new evidence and even old dogma. And yet, when it comes to how science ought to be funded, the nobler scientific side gives way to the irrational political side. How dare I begin to question the legitimacy of using tax dollars to fund science! Outrageous!
When I dare to open my mouth in front of other scientists, I get a few of these old chestnuts: "Don't you want to keep your job?" "Is it better that taxes are being used to bomb people in other countries?" "You aren't like the unwashed masses. You know better how to spend their money!" I would like to address each of these in turn:
Yes. I love my job. Science is a noble profession and one I would do even if no one paid me. The difference would be that it would become a hobby and not a way to earn a living. But that's assuming no one would pay me without the federal grant system. This is a scare tactic, not unlike many similar tactics employed by proponents of big government. I dare Chicken Little. I play chicken with Chicken Little. In time, other methods of funding science would emerge without the federal grant system. A truly free market would respond to this niche and science would continue. Of this, I have no doubt.
The idea that funding science is somehow diverting money from blowing up people is providing me with a false choice. I am against using tax dollars to fight offensive battles, so I would choose the unspoken third option: don't take money from people for either of these things.
This third tactic plays on the ego. Who wouldn't like to believe that they were special and more capable of knowing how to spend someone else's money? But I don't buy it. Am I smart? Yes. Does this justify robbing someone who isn't? No. If you're really concerned with how badly people handle money, try improving education. Also, read a book on Austrian economics. On a side note, Hayek's vision of a free market as emerging from the ground-up has a definite appeal as a biologist.
There are more questions in science than all the money in the world could ever address. The current grant system vets many different grant proposals against one another in a microcosm of a free market. But the method used to fund many of those granting institutions is an illegitimate use of government power and should therefore be usurped by the private sector. Furthermore, scientists should maintain their healthy skepticism in other aspects of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment