Stance on Science Funding

[Isotope Guy]

Does anyone know what Ron Paul's stance on science funding is? It seems to me that a strict application of libertarianism would preclude RP from supporting government-funded scientific research (from the NSF, NIH and NASA to name a few).

This would actually be a terrible move on RP's part, if my intuition is correct. Science funding is one place where "letting the market decide" is a bad, bad idea. I would appreciate it if someone could please clear this up, because there does not seem to be much reliable information on the subject.

Thanks.

[bbachtung]

Does anyone know what Ron Paul's stance on science funding is? It seems to me that a strict application of libertarianism would preclude RP from supporting government-funded scientific research (from the NSF, NIH and NASA to name a few).

This would actually be a terrible move on RP's part, if my intuition is correct. Science funding is one place where "letting the market decide" is a bad, bad idea. I would appreciate it if someone could please clear this up, because there does not seem to be much reliable information on the subject.

Thanks.

You should keep in mind that RP's view of the role of the federal government is based on the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution -- other than the part dealing with promoting science and invention via a patent system -- is the federal government authorized to subsidize science (or big oil, for that matter).

That is not, however, the end of the analysis. RP would have nothing to do with the individual states funding state-sponsored science; you can see that California has passed bonds to be in debt pretty much forever in order to sponsor state-funded stem cell research because the federal government isn't doing it.

Scientific research, however, would still be done via the military (including space research) because that is important to our national defense.

When there are fewer federal regulations and federal subsidies of established corporations (like the pharmaceuticals companies and big oil) there will be more incentive and fewer barriers to innovative scientists and science-based companies entering the market.

Don't forget that the following were invented in the U.S. without the help of the federal (or any) government:

-- The light bulb

-- The radio

-- The cotton gin

-- The telegraph

-- Bifocals (Ben Franklin pre-1776)

-- The telephone

-- Radio astronomy (From wikipedia: [In 1931] While trying to track down a source of electrical interference on telephone transmissions, Karl Guthe Jansky of Bell Telephone Laboratories discovers radio waves emanating from stars in outer space)

[MS0453]

This would actually be a terrible move on RP's part, if my intuition is correct. Science funding is one place where "letting the market decide" is a bad, bad idea.
Thanks.

I don't believe that for a second. For example, at the moment, Google's having a contest in which they'll pay $30 million to whoever can get a robot to the moon and send back images and video.

If there are incentives, there will be funding. Essentially, there will always be the incentive to progress forward.

[james1844]

Defunding the science agencies of government (e.g. NSF, NIH, etc.) are low priority for the Paul presidency. - I think this means that he'll continue to fund these agencies.

[0zzy]

Defunding the science agencies of government (e.g. NSF, NIH, etc.) are low priority for the Paul presidency. - I think this means that he'll continue to fund these agencies.

Ya. Plus he'd have to work with the legislator.

[sickmint79]

october 13-19th issue of the economist has a special report on innovation. didn't see it online on the public website. it is 20 pages. i didn't read it all but i remembered a chart; most significant sources of innovative ideas; % of respondents (765 CEOs and business leaders) who chose up to 3 of the following:
employees, 41%
business partners, 37%
customers, 35%
consultants, 22%
competitors, 20%
associations, trade shows, conference boards, 18%
internal sales and service units, 17%
internal r&d, 16%
academia, 13%

i would expect government funded research to be coming in at the lower end of the scale generally...

[Esor]

I'm a self-proclaimed astronomer... to make myself sound cool. But really, I love astronomy! I really think that the next step in the human cylce is to become space-faring. We already have a space station, NASA has plans to put another station on the moon. NASA also has plans to colonize Mars. Although I am personally all for NASA and space exploration and study, it is something that can be done by private corporations. For example, the first ever privately owned spaceship has launched into orbit around the Earth just a couple years ago. That company (I forget the name) has plans on being the first space-tourist agency to allow affordable space travel. People would be able (if they could afford it) to go into space and have picnics, propose to their love, etc. This is HUGE! HUGE!

[Corydoras]

Science funding is one place where "letting the market decide" is a bad, bad idea.

Why?

[SeanEdwards]

Central planning and control is pretty craptastic for most things, including deciding what "science" deserves funding. You end up with a bunch of research groups fighting for funding by trying to out orthodox each other. Crazy fringe ideas, that could possibly lead to huge breakthroughs, get marginalized because they don't seem mainstream enough.

In fact, politics is like the total opposite of pure science. Politics is all about public opinion, while science is about reality, regardless of what people want to hear. Just imagine where we'd be if the Vatican had been financing Galileo's research.

[Corydoras]

Crazy fringe ideas, that could possibly lead to huge breakthroughs, get marginalized because they don't seem mainstream enough.

Emphatic case in point:
The connection between Helicobacter pylori and gastric ulcers.