H. L. Mencken wrote, “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.”
Thank you for being a "dangerous and percipient man".
Some 20 years ago a good friend but somewhat of a greeny was telling me in breathless tones about how Shell had spent 4 million dollars on some climate research, IN ONE YEAR!, and how terrible it was that these vested interests were perverting science for financial gain. Just by coincidence I had a few minutes before read that the US government had that year spent some 28 billion dollars on the same topic.
She couldn't comprehend how the US government could be a corrupting source of research funding. It just didn't make sense to her.
Many of these points were also made by Terrence Kealey in his classic, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research [https://amzn.to/4h65fc2]. Innovation comes overwhelmingly from outsiders and those in the private sector. Academic government-funded science has become the tail trying to wag the dog.
Before this system can finally pass into history, the idea the government is a neutral arbiter of the public interest needs to die. There are still far too many people clinging to this belief, sad to say.
After 5x decades in academia and research, I’ve lost track of how many critically important topic areas have not been funded or lost funding due to political involvement which inevitably selects winners and losers based on monetary and political gain instead of importance and ROI.
What if the problem is reducing life to be about money and materialism?
It's true that patronage has worked in the past, and in the arts still works today, but a corrupt society and culture, as today, is reflected in our governments.
Science (and arts) shouldn't be about money and earning a paycheck. Maybe this should be a starting point.
That government (or the state) is more inefficient than the private sector, at this point is so self evident that only a fool would argue otherwise. But to suggest the interests for the common good are best served by the private sphere is also foolish.
The good news is this last decade has been so atrocious that if we survive maybe it can serve as fuel to the desires for honesty and transparency.
Welfare always gives you the opposite of what you want. Welfare medicine makes you sick. Welfare art makes the world ugly. Welfare in agriculture leaves you hungry. Welfare science makes you stupid. Just say no kids.
This is so interesting because, while you and I likely disagree on many topics (e.g. DEI, climate change), we seem to be aligned on the need to experiment (or resurrect in the case of scientific patronage) with new models of funding science. I wholeheartedly agree that it's naive to think NIH- and NSF-funded research isn't interest-driven, especially given the social dynamics at play during NIH study sessions.
I'm not a traditionally trained biochemist by any means—everything I know has come from a lot of reading and failed experiments in community labs and my home lab. But I wouldn’t trade the intellectual freedom that comes with funding my own projects and deciding what I find interesting or worth pursuing for anything.
In fact, I feel so deeply about this that I'm now dedicating all of my time to exploring an alternative research model—a community biology lab funded by commercial revenue that gives a handful of salaried scientists the ability to pursue their own ideas and mentor other independent researchers who use the lab for various reasons. We'll see what comes of it!
It's refreshing to disagree with someone yet still find common ground in certain ways of thinking.
H. L. Mencken wrote, “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable.”
Thank you for being a "dangerous and percipient man".
Some 20 years ago a good friend but somewhat of a greeny was telling me in breathless tones about how Shell had spent 4 million dollars on some climate research, IN ONE YEAR!, and how terrible it was that these vested interests were perverting science for financial gain. Just by coincidence I had a few minutes before read that the US government had that year spent some 28 billion dollars on the same topic.
She couldn't comprehend how the US government could be a corrupting source of research funding. It just didn't make sense to her.
Many of these points were also made by Terrence Kealey in his classic, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research [https://amzn.to/4h65fc2]. Innovation comes overwhelmingly from outsiders and those in the private sector. Academic government-funded science has become the tail trying to wag the dog.
I like how the link has the book pic upside down.
Before this system can finally pass into history, the idea the government is a neutral arbiter of the public interest needs to die. There are still far too many people clinging to this belief, sad to say.
This is my favorite recent example: 'Transgender people twice as likely to die as cisgender people'
How is not immediately apparent as nonsense?
https://substack.com/@jameswritesthings/note/c-97646476
We need to be the government.
Both Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis considered government funded science to be a dystopian idea.
Hmmmm.
After 5x decades in academia and research, I’ve lost track of how many critically important topic areas have not been funded or lost funding due to political involvement which inevitably selects winners and losers based on monetary and political gain instead of importance and ROI.
What if the problem is reducing life to be about money and materialism?
It's true that patronage has worked in the past, and in the arts still works today, but a corrupt society and culture, as today, is reflected in our governments.
Science (and arts) shouldn't be about money and earning a paycheck. Maybe this should be a starting point.
That government (or the state) is more inefficient than the private sector, at this point is so self evident that only a fool would argue otherwise. But to suggest the interests for the common good are best served by the private sphere is also foolish.
The good news is this last decade has been so atrocious that if we survive maybe it can serve as fuel to the desires for honesty and transparency.
Give science back to the monks!
Hear hear, I couldn’t agree more
Welfare always gives you the opposite of what you want. Welfare medicine makes you sick. Welfare art makes the world ugly. Welfare in agriculture leaves you hungry. Welfare science makes you stupid. Just say no kids.
Amen!
Preach it!
I do think that science and government is a toxic mix. Sad to say - but the cure is ending all government funding of science.
This is so interesting because, while you and I likely disagree on many topics (e.g. DEI, climate change), we seem to be aligned on the need to experiment (or resurrect in the case of scientific patronage) with new models of funding science. I wholeheartedly agree that it's naive to think NIH- and NSF-funded research isn't interest-driven, especially given the social dynamics at play during NIH study sessions.
I'm not a traditionally trained biochemist by any means—everything I know has come from a lot of reading and failed experiments in community labs and my home lab. But I wouldn’t trade the intellectual freedom that comes with funding my own projects and deciding what I find interesting or worth pursuing for anything.
In fact, I feel so deeply about this that I'm now dedicating all of my time to exploring an alternative research model—a community biology lab funded by commercial revenue that gives a handful of salaried scientists the ability to pursue their own ideas and mentor other independent researchers who use the lab for various reasons. We'll see what comes of it!
It's refreshing to disagree with someone yet still find common ground in certain ways of thinking.
In case you're interested in the community biology lab idea, here's the link: https://jasandolive.substack.com/p/plant-parenthood
Certainly hope you are right!
I am a scientist and I heard so many of these comments in the office. You summed it up well. Good job.