The Myth of Science as a Public Good (by Terence Kealey)

More videos on intellectual property: http://vforvoluntary.com/intellectual-property

Vice Chancellor of the University of Buckingham (Britain's only independent university), Terence Kealey is a vocal critic of government funding of science. His first book, 'The Economic Laws of Scientific Research,' argues that state funding of science is neither necessary nor beneficial, a thesis that he developed in his recently published analysis of the causes scientific progress, 'Sex, Science and Profits.' In it, he makes the stronger claim that not only is government funding not beneficial, but in fact measurably obstructs scientific progress, whilst presenting an alternative, methodologically-individualist understanding of 'invisible colleges' within which science resembles a private, not a public, good.

Recorded at Christ Church, University of Oxford, on 22nd May 2009.

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Science-Profits-Terence-Kealey/dp/0099281937/ref=nt...

http://oxlib.org.uk/

http://oxlib.blogspot.com/2009/05/myth-of-science-as-public-good.html

POSTED WITH PERMISSION FROM THE OXFORD LIBERTARIAN SOCIETY

Category:

Education

Tags:

• science
• public
• good
• myth
• free
• market
• charity
• university
• patents

[joaophilippe]

it's very easy to find people and/or institutions interested in funding applied research, but the same isn't true for pure research. What private enterprise would have interest in financing research in paleontology or cosmology, for example? It's hard to convince people to fund research that has no obvious and predictable gain, only the prospect of future one.

I think the role of government is acting where private enterprise don't have neither the resorces or willingness to do something.

[Nielsio]

@joaophilippe If you can't find a voluntary way of funding something, then why should it be done? If you can't find people to fund your paleontology research, then isn't it just a hobby then?

[Th3Minx]

4:24

His argument seems to be that since GDP growth is linear, public funding of science didn't help scientific advance. Only problem with that argument is that GDP real growth =/= scientific advance.

[Nielsio]

Yeah, he does make more fundamental/logical arguments but those come later.

[Chainedorlo]

Based on private property rights and non-aggression, absolutely.

[wildboy789789]

so anarchy would be the most productive?

[Justajawnie]

Well it is in the constitution... article 1 section 8. To promote science.

[mlokos2]

@Th3Minx also, 2% per year means it's not linear, but exponential. Quite embarassing for a guy like this to say that.

[Illyrien]

@joaophilippe

Who would fun cosmology? How about charitable organisation, foundations set up to support science, enthusiasts... who know. Perhaps universities would feel like reserving some of their funds fore pure research.

[decentralimprov]

@Th3Minx his point was public R&D crowds out private R&D by 125%. that makes sense. you could make $1 trillion worth of bombs to sit in storage inflating your GDP, but have a poorer nation because of it... with scientists spending energy doing something that may never be used rather than something productive.

[joepeeler34]

@Eldeecue The system that we have now is a progressive-corporatist-social­ist hybrid. It was largely erected during the Progressive/New Deal era. Both parties have expanded on that structure ever since. It's taken decades to dissipate much of the capital and wealth. The current system is much closer to your ideas than mine. Observe the results.

Internet? Ha! Many countries with heavily taxed, regulated, controlled economies didn't have that either. Most of those no longer exist.

[joepeeler34]

@Eldeecue The closest approximation in the 20th century of our ideas was in Hong Kong. How did that speck on the map, with almost no natural resources, achieve such a high standard of living compared to its neighbors with a mostly free market in place?

Our ideas, with some deviations, was also in place in the 19th-early 20th century here. Our ancestors went from subsistence level to wealthies in world during that short period. How?

[joepeeler34]

@Eldeecue I think it's a good idea for you to move to N. Korea or Cuba because that is the result of your ideas when taking to its logical conclusion.

Why do you think govt. creates wealth? It can certainly destroy.

As I stated earlier, the Somalian economy was reduced to subsistence by a communist govt.

Do you imagine that if your ideas were put in place at a subsistence level that it wouldn't take many generations to rise above it?

[Eldeecue]

@joepeeler34

I still think it's a good idea for you to move there, though. And for all libertarians to move there, really.

No internet over there. No more Ron Paul spam, no more Austrian School of Dipshit Economics Spam.

You'd be helping to build a better world by doing so....please, consider it. If not for me, than for my children, and my children's children.

[Eldeecue]

Someone explain to me how the voyager missions would have gotten done by a private entities.

Also explain to me how _anything_ that requires research that spans several lifetimes would _ever_ get funded.

Christ, you people are _worse_ than the Creationists.

[joaophilippe]

In principle, the whole idea of science being financed only by voluntary/private investment is wonderful. But there are the practical problems I mentioned before. Unfortunately, not all research is attractive to private investors, specially pure research, and is perfectly possible that some of this non-attractive research may be very important to do.