Slashdot Mirror
The Billionaires Privatizing American Science
An anonymous reader writes "Government-funded science is struggling in the United States. With the unstable economy over the past decade and the growing hostility to science in popular rhetoric, basic research money is getting hard to find. Part of the gap is being filled by billionaire philanthropists. Steven Edwards of the American Association for the Advancement of Science says, 'For better or worse, the practice of science in the 21st century is becoming shaped less by national priorities or by peer-review groups and more by the particular preferences of individuals with huge amounts of money.' Vast amounts of research are now driven by names like Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, David Koch, and Eric Schmidt. While this helps in some ways, it can hurt in others. 'Many of the patrons, they say, are ignoring basic research — the kind that investigates the riddles of nature and has produced centuries of breakthroughs, even whole industries — for a jumble of popular, feel-good fields like environmental studies and space exploration. ... Fundamentally at stake, the critics say, is the social contract that cultivates science for the common good.'"
What could possibly go wrong? They'll "prove" that fracking doesn't pollute groundwater, nuclear plants and their waste products are safe and global warming is a myth. Oh yeah, the Earth is 6,000 years old and Intelligent Design is science. We, our children and our grandchildren will all profit from this!
Billionaires tend to be far more critical of what their money finances than government granting authorities. Consider all of the scandals involving made up data. A billionaire who funded that might get it checked out before allowing it to be published. A government agency won't. A billionaire who discovers shenanigans certainly won't fund that researcher again, a government agency probably will.
Now I know a lot of that is driven by "publish or perish" but it's pretty obvious that private donors are more likely to scrutinize than public sector donors. If that weren't the case, the various public funding agencies would be bringing the fraudulent researchers up on criminal charges for defrauding the tax payer.
But in reality, this should be welcomed. This is how science got funded during its first centuries as a discipline when many of the giants of science did their work. Billionaires have the luxury of blowing their money however they see fit. All a researcher who thinks a field might prove promising has to do is make a case to the man with the money. There's no public interest involved, just his personal interest. That means no red tape, no government oversight, etc.
Son, we live in a world that has a permanent political class, and that PPC has to be guarded by votes. Who's gonna do it? You? You, AC? The PPC has a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for basic research, and you curse the skeptics. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That basic research's death, while tragic, probably saved votes. And the PPC's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, requires votes. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want the PPC in charge, you need the PPC in charge. We use words like procedure, program, process. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending the PPC. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very "managed" freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you bundle some campaign funds, and bring in some votes. Either way, I don't give a damn what research you think the public should support.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
What if the Billionaire WANTS a certain answer and lets the scientist know it, so that the "data" can be published for a huge return on investment for the billionaire? Tobacco industry did this.
Or maybe billionaire just has an answer he emotionally wants to hear and funds science to get that instead of sensible science? If Jenny McCarthy had billions what sort of research d'you think she might fund?
Or what if billionaire wants research on life extending treatments for him and him alone and screw publishing?
I don't see any compelling reason billionare science would be any better than publicly funded science. I'd rather everyone own the results, too, than a billionaire.
I mean, one thing a billionare is VERY good at is hoarding good things (money) for themselves AREN'T THEY.
--PeterM
Given the many trillions of dollars committed to Social Security / Medicare, and the amazing ability of baby boomers to get their way politically, it seems pretty obvious that everything that isn't Social Security, Medicare better be prepared to go private.
This seems to be a return to some very old models of research- think Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, where research was not government supported, but either the hobby of the very rich, or the very rich paying someone. I suppose that it could be considered as government supported, as the very rich *were* the government. The institutional government supporting research appears to be a 19th or 20th century change, and that is dominated by military motives.
The super rich have more money than they could possibly spend- why not let them spend that money in the way that they want? Be it driven by guilt or by the desire to make more money... I'd much rather them spend the money on science as opposed to spending their money on becoming part of the government (think Mitt Romney and Michael Bloomberg in the US and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy).
Private funding is great in many areas. This is particularly true of science that addresses problems that society needs to solve (e.g. medicine) or that captures people's imaginations (e.g. astronomy).
However, there is a lot of science that needs to be done that doesn't fit into either category. That is where governments need to step in.
Call it a minimum requirement. If nuclear plants run on 1960s tech they will not be safe. Fukushima complied with the safety requirements of the day.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
It really was not until the Manhattan project and post WWII cold war that government became the patron of scientists. Was Diract writing grant requests? Bohr? Heisenberg? Shockley (et al)?
This is a really encouraging sign and should be looked upon favorably even if it is not prefect. Philanthropists have been on the sidelines for a long time now and it will be a learning process for all involved on how to best utilize funding.
I don't think so. Basic scientific research has been privately funded for most of those centuries. Government funding is a relatively recent change.
You are either trolling or being sarcastic, but you actually bring up what is probably the core point here.
Many years ago, the rightmost elements decided that a strong government was not beneficial to the wealthiest citizens and in fact was a threat to them. Therefore, the goal became to reduce the size of government to the bare essentials - the smallest possible size that would protect them and their hoards - and then, control it.
At some point several decades ago, around the time or Reagan or maybe a little earlier, it was realized the way to do this was to do this was to reduce the amount of money government had to spend. There were two ways they could accomplish this. They could either reduce taxes, or increase the debt so that interest became a more and more substantial portion of the budget. It wasn't an either/or scenario, in fact the two were completely complimentary. They went down both roads.
For decades Republicans have been coupling tax cuts, preferentially for the wealthy to please the oligarch and corporate overlords, combined with prolific spending, preferentially on the military industrial complex (MIC).
This has gotten us to where we are today: an unpayable debt, a military budget that exceeds the rest of the developed world combined (with a large part of that budget going directly to defense contracting companies), and the budgets for most of the 'good' parts of government (which include scientific research and programs that keep people out of abject poverty) being slashed.
The place where the architects of this plan fucked up, and the one hope rational middle class and lower class people have to salvage the situation, is that the right also threw their lot in with the religious extremists in order to get people elected into office that otherwise would not. This has, today, given them an important faction of their bloc that continues to alienate minorities and people of more moderate viewpoints with absurd and offensive positions and statements, in some cases costing the Republicans elections. The chickens have come home to roost, so to speak.
This is the last chance to save our society from complete control by the monied elite and corporations, which apparently are now equivalent to very, very rich people in the eyes of the government (without many of the obligations). This division must be exploited, expanded, and communicated to the voters. Also, people must be allowed and urged to vote - Republican voter suppression efforts, gerrymandering, and electoral college changes are another, more obvious, flank of this battle that results in representation in Washington that does not represent the demographics of the population they are representing. 2014 may be a lost cause, but 2016 is not. I'll have to hold my nose while I do it, but if I have to, I'll put Hillary's name on the ballot in 2016.
Other tenets of the far right to hold the lower classes down where they belong include:
- Continuing to tie insurance to employers - leaving the workers completely dependent upon the corporations where they are employed. Sort of the equivalent of the old 'company store' where you could spend the scrip you received as pay.
- Cutting unemployment benefits - forcing people to stay in shitty jobs
- Cutting or dumbing down education - a less educated populace is easier to control. Think about how many of the Founding Fathers were educated and wealthy. We can't have that again, can we?
- Eliminating birth control - a child will force people out of higher education and into a paycheck to paycheck job to pay the bills, and as a bonus the child is likely to grow up less educated as well.
- A war on the scientifically accepted climate change theories. Any attempt to do anything about these will result in lower profits for the Overlords.
The poster asserts, "Government-funded science is struggling in the United States."
The Federal Government spends more than $130 billion on research and development (R&D) each year, conducted primarily at universities and Federal laboratories.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog...
How much should the taxpayers spend on research? Show your work.
The problem is we don't actually know what is and isn't a waste.
A lot of very useful science started out as just some researchers pie in the sky distraction. For instance, much of the work in number theory and pure mathematics of the past few hundred years had no clear use. In Hilberts autobiography, "Apology of a Mathematician" he apologized for spending his life playing with puzzles that he thought were fun.
However, actually number theory (especially now that we have computers) actually turned out to be QUITE useful.
The problem is you don't know what will or won't be useful ex-ante. There are certainly benefits to saying "we should find a cure for _____" However, perhaps some microbiologist who just wanted to see what he could grow if he tried culturing a geyser will discover something revolutionary. (Really happened. Modern microbiology relies on replicating DNA which uses a mechanism found in a bacteria that figured out how to live in a geyser).
Really we need a mix. If a billionaire likes the idea of going into space, we should welcome him to try. However, we should still support pure research because of the probably effects on society.
Interesting attempt to paint the "rightmost elements" of government as being responsible for our dysfunctional government.
I suggest, instead, that the primary problem with our government, and our economy, is the Federal Reserve. Like the World Bank and the various Central Banks around the world, it's interests supersede any national interests. Central banks, especially the Bank of England, are notorious for funding both sides in a war, knowing that the winner will control the assets necessary to repay to funds of both sides.
Left wing, right wing, it doesn't matter. The Fed funds them both, and both are very happy to impoverish the nation while trying to ensure they it rules the country.
While you're so happy highlighting all the evils of the right - you miss all the evils of the left. Welfare, for instance. Why do we have a welfare system that actually encourages generational dependence on the government? Why are welfare recipients using their benefits to purchase luxury goods? Why do 1 in 4 Americans qualify for welfare? Why do illegal aliens often get welfare benefits?
Neither party has any interest in enriching the common man, and both parties cooperate in impoverishing the population of the United States. Each has it's own interests, of course, but the fact is, there is a class war in the US right now. It's the "ruling class" versus all the rest of us.
Left or right, the ruling class fails to identify with the common man, and they have zero loyalty to the rapidly disappearing "middle class".
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Stopped reading at "son".
*Whoosh*
This seems to be a return to some very old models of research
Not entirely. Aristotle, Da Vinci etc were given leave to "explore". They were funded to do curiosity driven research as well as the "build a better widget" kind. Today's billionaires, very like governments, are focussed on getting better widgets rather than improving mankind's knowledge. The problem is that it can take 50-100 years before our new fundamental knowledge can be applied so by the time that they all wake up to find that applied science has slowed to a crawl it will be a long time before the damage can be undone.
The OP's comments on the "social contract" refer to his desire for people with guns to take from my science projects and from the people I support, and give to his science projects, and the people he supports. Calling it "the social contract that cultivates science for the common good" is despicable propaganda. It's funny how
"the common good" always involves hiring thugs to threaten other people so that you get your way.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
I'm sure that this news may make a lot of slashdotters uncomfortable. But I ask you to think of the alternative. They could spend their billions influencing elections. How many attack ads can you buy for $75 billion?
Here's a challenge. How should billionaires spend their money?
I'm not asking for how you would spend the billions if it was yours, nor am I interested in your concept of social justice or what is beneficial for mankind. I'm challenging you to try to imagine the world from, the billionaire's view.
Private funding in medicine sucks. If the new drug you're testings turns out to not work well or produces some really bad side effects you can't sell it and all the money seems lost (you've learned something, but you can't sell or quantify that). So there's a lot of pressure to bury the facts and get your drugs to market as long as we'll make a profit before the lawsuits come in.
We shouldn't have privately funded medical research.
_A Mathematician's Apology_ was by G.H. Hardy, not Hilbert.
The president doesn't spend money. Congress spends the money. Perhaps you should check your 'facts.'
Really? Patronage was the norm for a long time, but who were the patrons? Mostly the upper nobility who had money to burn - aka the government of the time. How often do you suppose the king kept separate treasuries for the nation and himself? Or the nobility, who were basically state or county governments. Sure, you had the merchant-princes as well whose empire was forged from trade routes rather than farmland, but basically those with money *were* the government.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Epic post. It took a few seconds to catch on, but awesome reuse and appropriation of the feel of that particular homily.
That you had someone moderate it without knowing what it was and have to post to remove moderation only increases the epicness.
In my view having a choice in the matter of whether to aid your fellow man and deciding to do it is a more moral act than being compelled to at the point of a gun or a prison cell.
Why do people buy "luxury" goods with handouts? why ever not? It may be that they live a life so frugal that they have leftover ressources. Or maybe you are one of these "small government" tyoes who think that there should be a list of items that you are allowed to buy with food stamps -- which there already is, shockingly enough -- but think that giving parents vouchers to put their kids in whatever school is fine, because government has no business to run our lives.
If you believe in the free market, and simultaneoulsy believe in a safety net -- which is a wholly reasonable and humane position to have -- you should demand that the government handouts be in the form of cash. Sure, sometimes, it will be used to buy dope, but most of the time, people will use it in ways which are good for them. And it will not cause stupid market distortions and serve as a handout to the financial industry.
Also if you think that people get stuck in wellfare because of wellfare, let me just point out to you that countries whith more generous wellfare are also much better at getting people out of it. This is because to educate yourself, search effectively for a job or land a job, you must have the time and ressources. Minimal wellfare is indeed a trap which barely prevents people from dying of hunger, but to get people out of poverty, you need to invest in them, and this means much larger handouts.
Interesting attempt to paint the "rightmost elements" of government as being responsible for our dysfunctional government.
A 30-year senior GOP insider said explicitly that the agreed strategy to destroy government, and then blame the other guy.
I suggest, instead, that the primary problem with our government, and our economy, is the Federal Reserve.
Ah, I see we're dealing with a crank. Well no-one expects a true believer to give due diligence to counter-arguments, but for those reading... both provided links are pithy, and highlight just how screwed up our situation really is.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Sure it is, and even dictatorships acknowledge this. What is a cult of personality or state propaganda but an attempt to persuade people to vote for the current leader and system, either formally or with their feet? What is brutal oppression other than an attempt to secure votes through intimidation?
You can't rule without the consent of the ruled, and a formal voting mechanism is simply a means of establishing who has it in a public and unambiguous way.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Actually, Reagan initially cut taxes and then (unlike the teapartiests of today) realized that he would have to raise taxes, which he did
Reagan also (like the op said) increased military spending dramatically and cut social programs, effectively diverting the tax revenues from the poor to the wealthy
Bush 2 played the game much harder and kept tax cuts in place while riding the national debt to new heights. As far as military spending went, they kept the mounting war debt off the books, which magically made Obama responsible for it when he brought that debt back on the books
It IS all the childish games that the gop has decided to play on Americans that have put us in this position and no amount of o'really bloviating or hannity shouting down the truth will change that
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Theorists who did thought experiments. Now, how about a particle physicist that needs a multibillion dollar collider that may discover something that has absolutely no economic value - at least in the near term?
You believe then, that since you are unable to conceive of its value and articulate that vision sufficient to convince people (the rich and the corporations) to fund it, that instead you should use guns to force them to pay for it?
Yes, what I meant is that when faced with increasing deficits due to his tax cuts and military spending, unlike Reagan, he refused to push his party towards accepting tax increases
Reagan was a moderate compared to the current gopers and their quest to find the next Reagan will fail because their would reject the real Reagan as a rino
And yes, the middle class will bear the brunt of this and considering the reliance on sales taxes, the poor will pay more towards this debt as well
What needs to be said is, no I do not hate the wealthy, but yes I feel that they need to pay more in taxes, considering that they have done so well in the economic environment that this country created for them
And, if they decide to leave this country in droves, then they can enjoy higher taxes in Europe, political corruption in Asia or the costs of paying for their own police force and infrastructure anywhere else
Wherever You Go, There You Are
No, Social Security is a bad example. It is actually not subsidized. It does not do much wealth redistribution. Yes there is some from rich to poor, but mostly it moves wealth from your present self to your future self. Since the money that it puts aside for the future is a huge amount, the government borrows it, paying some interest. It's a much safer deal for Social Security than all these schemes to privatize it by putting those savings into the stock markets.
If Social Security money is ever placed in the stock markets, we will see the biggest yet pump and dump scam in history. The last few times that calls to privatize Social Security grew loud were just before stock market crashes. We've all heard their noises. They whip up studies that claim Social Security is not solvent and will go bankrupt, and we must do something like cut benefits and lower payments, or raise the retirement age, or ... privatize it! They call it an "entitlement", when it really is not, as it is fully funded from payroll taxes. They try to exploit the perception that government can't be trusted to do anything right and that the money could be better used in the markets. And that would be true, except that these market manipulators are even less worthy of trust than the government. The finance people weren't interested in helping retirees, they were scheming to save their own necks from their reckless gambling by raiding any source of cash they could find, and public pensions and retirement funds had a lot of cash. It would have kept them bubbling for another few years, that's all. Then the market would crash anyway, and where would all of Social Security's money be then?
Billionaires really have a poor track record on philanthropic investing. They simply cannot use the money as effectively as a swarm intelligence. Warren Buffett jumped on Bill Gates' bandwagon because he realized he couldn't donate effectively on his own, and thought a smart tech guy like Gates could do a better job. He was half right. We see that Gates is struggling to make his donations mean something. Finding cures for terrible diseases is certainly noble, especially if they pull it off. But can they? History suggests not. They're trying for too much and going for the glamorous rather than the practical. In the past, we've seen such white elephants as the Bass Brother's Biosphere 2, and largely useless stunts and entries for the Guinness Book of World Records like balloon flights around the world and skydiving from great heights. It's a lot like the desire to put a man on Mars. Very impressive if it can be done, but at what cost? Is it worth it? Look back at some of the things envisioned in the 19th century, a sort of steampunk colored view. And one of the big dreams of the mid 20th century was the flying car. How much effort was wasted trying to turn that idea into reality? Similarly, there was and still is the jetpack. The savvier, smarter billionaires invested in people, like the railroad tycoon Stanford did in the creation of Stanford U.
Now it seems likely we will see self driving cars and electric cars before flying cars. We will have flying cars, just as soon as our devices can approach birds' or insects' mental abilities to handle flight, and our materials improve even further on the strength to weight ratio, and we figure better ways to store and release energy.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
The free market does many things very well. It ignores externalities. It ignores morality.
In a limited sense, it is great at optimizing resource use. In other senses, it is terrible, often leading to great concentrations of wealth at the expense of others.
In a limited sense, it is great at making investments. In practice, the investments tend to go for short-term individual gain, and can easily be a net loss to total wealth because of externalities. We're all going to be better off investing in basic research, but that doesn't reward the specific investors nearly as much as it rewards everybody, and so no individual will find it in his or her financial interest to underwrite it.
The free market does a great job of satisfying people's desires given a certain resource limit, but overconcentration of wealth results in a few people getting most of their economic desires, and the masses getting much less. Given that individual wealth, like pretty much everything else, obeys the law of diminishing returns, spreading out the wealth increases total welfare.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes