By: Dylan Mead

Dylan Mead — Sat, 05 May 2012 05:34:54 +0000

“what would stop private individuals in the future from financing other such activities?”
Private investors will never substantially fund pure science because of the inherent uncertainty in the applicability of the fruits of that research. Hyper text transfer protocol (http) was invented at CERN so scientists could share their data with collaborators at other labs and universities around the world. I find it incredibly unlikely that ,without government funding, any privately owned communications company would have funded an investigation into elementary particle physics on the off hand chance that they would develop ground breaking internet technology. I am currently working in a multi-university research group that is developing high resolution particle detectors to be used in a new, internationally funded particle collider. Though it was not the intention of the group from the outset, we had to develop state of the art techniques for bonding microchips to semiconducting wafers. That was just one of the issues that came up as we went along with our project. These types of investigation into fundamental science are valuable for two reasons. First: scientists invent incredibly useful technologies, almost by accident, in order to achieve their research goals. Second: knowledge of the workings of nature has value. This knowledge allows humanity to take an active role in the determining of our fate. This knowledge also has a value in the sense that knowledge of nature enriches life much the same way that art does. Our species would probably survive without science or art but is that the kind of existence we want for ourselves? Private corporations are not going to fund pure science unless it is directly related to them making money. It is a corporation’s nature to make money just like it is caterpillar’s nature to eat leaves. I don’t fault them for that. It simply is what they do so we shouldn’t expect private companies to fund pure science. Government should fund pure science, with our money, because when you ask “who is going to benefit from this research?” the only answer a scientist can give with certainty is “humanity”.

By: Greg Adams

Greg Adams — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:07:30 +0000

Thanks for making this issue more visible in libertarian circles. I find that the actual mechanics of science funding is rarely discussed on sites like this one. Makes sense, since most liberty minded people are smart enough to not tie themselves to the govt run machine of science in academia. The day to day workings of the peer review system of grants has many problems not usually considered by those who have not had their livelihood depend on it.

Comments on: Can (big) science survive without taxpayer funds?

By: Dylan Mead

By: Greg Adams