How Do You Respond To This?

[rational thinker]

I was educated in the States, as you still have the best facilities for higher education in the world, but as soon as I graduated I left the country. The same is true of probably about 40% of the scientists I know who got their BSs or SMs in the States, and as much as 60% of those who got their doctorates. Depending upon specialization, that figure is even higher; I only know a handful geneticists who stayed in the States after graduating.
The problem is that scientific research is done two ways; funding from corporations, and funding from the government. The pitfall with the former avenue is that the intent of a corporation is, of course, capitalistic, and they are therefore only likely to devote substantial funds to research which is likely to post commensurately substantial profits in the near future. Many topics which imperatively need to be researched, again much of genetics especially, are not terribly lucrative. Thus, the main reason the States is unable to retain some of the best minds in the world is that the government simply is not as interested in funding research as are many countries in Europe and Asia. Not to get political about it, but this is one of my most fundamental objections to the libertarian belief that government shouldn't fund any research.

How would you respond to this scientist from a libertarian perspective?

[micahnelson]

How would you respond to this scientist from a libertarian perspective?

Genetic Research isn't profitable? I don't know about that...

And why is it so many cures and medicines are discovered here? Because you can profit from your discovery. Public funding lets politicians fund research based on votes. If people wanted to donate to the research, that would be fine- but why should we be forced to fund genetic research at gunpoint.

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

[Mini-Me]

To the degree that people have a vested interest in this research being done, they'll fund private charities anyway. There are TONS of charities for medical research, and I know a lot of people that donate regularly. Of course, the amount people are willing and able to freely donate is currently being severely limited by the amount the government is currently stealing from us...though this was not always the case, according to Alexis de Tocqueville's observations when he visited America. If we weren't constantly being swindled out of tax money, people would have a lot more money to donate to these causes, and medical research would probably be at the top of the list. After all, the bigger a problem some disease is, the greater vested interest more people will have in funding research that might save their lives.

Now, in case he objects by arguing the merits of another kind of research that has nothing to do with medical cures but still insists it "imperatively must be done," I would ask him why he feels that way. After all, if the research is merely academic and unlikely to result in practical applications that will benefit humanity, why should anyone spend so much money funding it? Sure, scientists are sometimes just very interested in topics, but a scientist's curiosity alone is not a great enough reason to rob others for funding. Their high levels of education might make them feel this way sometimes, but scientists are not entitled to research money. That said, even research topics that are purely academic and only related to the pursuit of further knowledge would still receive private funding, just not as much. Their funding would be in line with how important people in general feel the causes are. Along with medical research (genetic and otherwise), one of the top causes I'd donate to myself is that of physics research, just because I personally feel it's important knowledge to have. Others are free to disagree. :)

In The Revolution: A Manifesto, Ron Paul talks about similar kinds of government programs vs. private charities on pages 74 and 75, and he provides a couple examples. It might be worth taking a look. :)

All that said, considering the ridiculous amounts of money the government is currently spending on empire and warfare, I'm appalled that it's STILL underfunding more worthy causes like genetic research in comparison. Seriously, with as much wealth as the government is leeching from us, how could we possibly still be at the bottom of the barrel? Lame!

[beerista]

How would you respond to this scientist from a libertarian perspective?

Arguing his points really misses the point of libertarianism. Libertarianism doesn't have to always and in every case produce the best results for it to be the preferred system. It can be shown to produce better results most of the time, but even when it does not, it is still the system in which the government does not hand out money that it steals from the people to special interests. Like most special interests, your scientist does not see himself as one. But what else does one call someone demanding that the government pay him or he will cease his chosen profession? Many scientist, when asked, will list as their intellectual heroes men and women who did their work on their own time in labs funded with their own money, often at a loss, for the love of discovery. In the next breath they'll give you a long diatribe about how science is a noble cause that is a moral good in itself and therefore balances the need to fund it by theft. I submit that farmers might make the same claim, but I don't acknowledge that they should subsist off stolen money.

Libertarians I think all too often falls into the trap of arguing results, where we only generally have an advantage, when we should argue the rightness of not stealing as a source of income, a much stronger case.

[RonPaulNewbee]

What you guys are missing from this is that the two forms of research are Applied and Basic. Corporations don't do much Basic Research. Basic Research is the search for pure science. America is good at that and many different disciplines benefit from one bit of Basic Research. Applied science is working toward a fixed product. The problem with only funding Applied Research is that is furthers the corporate/consumer zeitgeist. Basic science only has one god: truth.

Now, ask yourself: is truth a worthy pursuit of a government? Do the people not benefit from scientific discovery? Or are the masses only willing to fund that which has a limited, possibly temporary result that is commercially expedient? I'll tell you this, no scientist wants to be funded on a year to year basis based on "donations". We need a little more stability than that as we tackle long term scientific inquiry.

[nickcoons]

Now, ask yourself: is truth a worthy pursuit of a government?

No, it is not. The government's job is to protect the rights of the individual, and it cannot do that job while simultaneously infringing on those rights.


Do the people not benefit from scientific discovery?

That is a very slippery slope argument, because people use it to argue for the existence of such things as public education and Social Security.

The answer to your question is "yes", people do benefit from scientific discovery, but that does not imply that is should be a government function. There are many things that people benefit from. But you cannot impose a (potentially unwanted) benefit on someone and then force them to pay for it. How about if I show up in the middle of the night and put a new coat of paint on your house, then present you with the bill the following morning?

When someone gives you something that you didn't ask for, it's a gift and you have no obligation to pay for it. If people want the benefit that scientific discovery brings them, then they'll pay for it.


Or are the masses only willing to fund that which has a limited, possibly temporary result that is commercially expedient? I'll tell you this, no scientist wants to be funded on a year to year basis based on "donations". We need a little more stability than that as we tackle long term scientific inquiry.

I think everyone wants their economic circumstances to be more stable than they are. That was the argument made for creating the Federal Reserve ;).

[john_anderson_ii]

Most notably, I'd site 'Climate Change', formerly known as 'Global Warming'. The average NASCAR fan knows the fundamentals of aerodynamics. The American do-it-yourselfer knows the principles of electricity, plumbing, and even the basics of electronics. All of which are systems based upon consumer models. When it comes to climate change, the average Joe, who knows how his fuel injection system maps stoichiometric burn rates well enough to install a NoS system, doesn't know who or what to believe.

A modern government does not provide scientific grants and taxpayer money in an effort to discover and publish the truth. A modern government supplies money for the purpose of solidifying power. Any government which supplies a grant expects a result which either solidifies their positions, or scares the people away from the opposition. Any conclusion that is reached that is contrary to the platform of the financiers will be buried and the scientist will be cut off. A brief look into the 'bandwidth crisis' created by internet video and of so-called 'net-neutrality' should show your friend that even statisticians can be bought off and silenced.

So basically your friend has to choose. Does he want to be funded by a corporation who stands to profit upon the implementation of the discovered truth, or a government who will bury or distort the truth depending upon which action further supports the funding parties' platform?

He can have Pfizer Pharmaceuticals or Al Gore and the Witch Hunt Gang. He can have AT&T and Verizon's compression innovations or Ted Steven's 'series of tubes'.

When the government puts money into a science you can bet they aren't seeking the truth unless the truth is convenient to the advancement of their platform. When a company puts money into science you can bet they are hoping for the truth, because the truth of viagra, electronic ignition control, and stateful packet inspection are in-fact profitable.

When Sildenafil didn't produce the appropriate results, the science behind the technology wasn't shoved under the rug, such as when the vaguery of 'Global Warming' became the even more vague 'Climate Change'. When Sildenafil proved to be largely ineffective in battles against hypertension and extremely effective in battles against limp dicks, corporate America chose to market the truth in the form of Viagra. Governmental projects, like ethanol are either complete successes, or never reported upon again.

Governmental injections of money into science either supports the party who injected the money or the discoveries and conclusions are buried. That means those who receive governmental research money have a very human choice to make. Tow the line or be cut-off. That brings a very human, subjective element into the otherwise objective scientific process. That is no way to conduct science, and the sell-out scientists who work for table scraps from government agencies know it. Real science is conducted objectively, not to fill out a preset conditional platform. Whenever government is involved in the scientific process a preset conditional platform, upon which future funding depends upon, exists.