We also have a strategic interest in draining intelligent individuals from other countries and nationalizing them in ours, which science funding plays a major part in doing.
One of the reasons why its complicated, however, is that the University environment has changed significantly in the US. What used to be academically-motivated institutions dedicated to the pursuit of education are now, essentially, just boring businesses, with more middle managers than educators. As one example, UCLA has a $9.8B endowment. Their athletics programs brought in $120M last year (though, they spent more, and the university itself had to provide gap funding of $30M. yup.) IPAM was receiving $5M/year in NSF funding (DMS-1925919). One obviously extreme way of looking at this: UCLA could have funded Terrance Tao's mathematics research group for six years with the money they used to save a hundred million dollar athletics program that's somehow still losing money.
This is a priorities issue for universities, through and through. But, Universities have slowly evolved their priorities to bloat their managerial class, which has forced them into impossible financial situations where the only way out is to bias investment into revenue generating verticals like maximizing the size of the student body at any cost on the backs of no-default student loans, international students, and athletics programs. Research takes a back seat.
I am all for public funding of science, but even many university researchers would argue, as a part of the system, that its broken (for reasons which extend even beyond those I've brought up). That's why I struggle to take a solid side on this issue; I want science, but what I want more is a University system that actually takes education and research seriously.
With most actions, there's nothing being remedied, just an assertion of control. The action isn't tied to an improvement goal or a remedy with rationale.
As Tao noted, in cases where a remedy for a wrong is mentioned, the remedies being proposed by the administration do far more harm to any ostensible victims than the original asserted wrongs.
Nothing about their actions is in good faith in terms of improving academics in the US, nor do they even try in most cases to pretend to be trying to improve academics at all.
UCLA paid their head football coach ~$6M/year. Will they ever decide to take any kind of money of that scale and fund Tao's research at IPAM? The reason you'll hear is "its ROI, a great football program generates revenue for the university" but the reality is: like 70% of University athletics programs are unprofitable, including UCLA's football program. Moreover: while I understand that universities have to operate like a business, their business goal must be "to make as much awesome education and research happen"; everything must serve that goal, and it doesn't today. I am extremely unconvinced that hyper-sized athletics programs and millionaire coaches further this goal, especially against the backdrop that they're tremendously and systemically unprofitable for everyone except the coaches, management, and the NCAA.
[1] https://www.nsf.gov/policies/document/indirect-cost-rate
Two reasons.
First, private philanthropy is neither sustainable nor sufficient in scope.
Second, because government funded science is free from having to produce immediate results in order to satisfy the whims of a specific patron such that funding is continued.
> It seems like an obvious channel for corruption of science.
Yes, relying on private entities to fund scientific research does seem like an obvious channel for corruption.
I agree with you but there's irony (and a possible lesson about motives) in the current situation.
The problem and paradox is that it's hundreds of elected representatives and a handful of judges entirely abdicating their responsibility to make it just one guy.
> I agree with you but there's irony (and a possible lesson about motives) in the current situation.
Quite true, sadly.
I am reminded of an old adage[0]:
In theory there is no difference between theory and
practice, while in practice there is.
The market can't provide public goods like basic research since it's non-excludable. This is a market failure, causing inefficient allocation of resources.
Therefore, the government has to provide it. This can improve efficiency of resource distribution, if done well.
Whether it's done well is not a foregone conclusion. That's why we need effective and technocratic state capacity, free from corruption and independent of political influence.
> I don’t really understand why so much of science is funded by the government instead of by private philanthropy.
Like if I want to fund a pet study that I’m interested in, can I just call up Harvard and offer the lab $1M to work on it? I’ve never heard of anyone doing that, but I’m not really sure why it doesn’t exist (which is why I’m asking if anyone else knows).
Office for Sponsored Programs
1033 Massachusetts Avenue
5th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
617-495-5501
osp@harvard.edu"This work was funded in part by NSF Award CNS-2054869 and gifts from Apple, Capital One, Facebook, Google, and Mozilla."
That said, private grant funding is just of a completely different scale than government grant funding. For example, NIH's annual budget is 48 billion and most of that goes to research (https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/organization/budget).
For instance, the Chan Zuckerberg Institute before Zuck decided he had to appear to hate science in order to curry favor with the current regime.
If you want them to do a specific experiment you’ll likely first need to convince them that it’s a good use of their time.
Harvard itself plays approximately zero role in the decision to do a study or not. (There are ethical oversight committees, etc.)
$1M total cost ($600-800k direct cost depending on terms) will buy you a postdoc’s time and effort for 5 years. Unfortunately most labs aren’t set up for a time/money tradeoff, so 5 postdocs for 1 year would be unlikely absent a really exciting project.
It definitely happens quite a bit!
And those tend to be: things that are perceived by the donor as having high immediate returns, things that are perceived by the public as having high immediate returns and thus are good for buying status, and things that provide a convenient channel for the donor to exercise power via the donation, making it away to enjoy wealth while also getting a tax break for it.
Basic science doesn't tend to fit any of those, which is why science funded by private philanthropy is small compared either to government funding of basic science or total private philanthropy.
Would would ANY private enterprise (i.e. pharmaceutical company) want to fund research that would enable that?
The immense money (the US spends over $200B a year in cancer 'treatments') that these companies would not be making anymore would deter any such research.
Same goes for many other scientific discoveries. Some are for the greater humanitarian good, not for private enterprise profit maximisation.
Of course any company would take this deal and make a boatload of money (though less than the $200B / year).
Undercutting all its competitors would be a bonus, not a deterrent.
This has happened so many times throughout history. New tech comes in, does the same thing cheaper and better, old companies die out kicking and screaming.
Companies and their shareholders only do things that are profitable.