manhattan project? PCR?
Discussion
Government funded research is not guaranteed to be looking for a scientific result.
I can’t remember where I read this, otherwise would cite. I’m also paraphrasing because I can’t find it.
“The product of science is truth (or as close as we can get). But the product of scientists is reputation”
Terrible incentive alignment
It's the funding that troubles
I’m not so sure about that. Any system that operates like this will have the same problem:
1) Scientists must look for funding
2) Scientists with the best reputation are more likely to be funded
3) Scientists are incentivized to prioritize reputation above scientific rigor
This would plague private funding just as much, assuming we’re talking about grant style funding where the scientist has a large amount of freedom.
Within private sector R&D, you don’t have this problem. But you also don’t get the flexibility to pursue questions that have no clear monetization path.
Very good points, thank you.
The government grants to scientists with other peoples’ money. Private grantors (or those who donate to the grantors) spend their own money.
True, but that’s more a statement about government theft than anything. These grant proposals are reviewed by blinded academics, not government employees or appointees.
Unless the private grantors have the expertise to review proposals at scale, they would likely follow a similar process
As Effective Altruists have pointed out, charitable giving is not as results-driven as it could be. Still, it has to be less wasteful than government grants, because the givers have skin in the game.
You’re assuming the givers are giving with a near-term expected application of results, which is not the case with grant funded research.
What you’re saying is true about privately funded research and development within business. Reread what I said about that
No, I’m not. Private givers may not always expect a marketable product to result from the research they fund, but they at least expect new knowledge. Preferably important or profound knowledge.
Ah so the scientists would be incentivized to spin their findings as marketably as possible in order to secure more funding in the future? You don’t say
That was never in dispute. I’m not suggesting that substituting private grants for government grants would produce science nirvana.
What was it Milton Friedman said about the four ways to spend money?
Here it is.
You would be right to say that some achievements, that were government funded, were spectacular and couldn't have been achieved without pure pursuit of scientific results. But because no guarantee was possible, the first statement is right. The pursuit of scientific result must be absolute by definition, but it has shown it is not.