If that's the most productive research money can buy... well hell, power to em! I'm glad to see private funding gowing to the somewhat fringe fields as well as traditional investment.

By  Robert Nanders, at Thu Jun 01, 12:44:00 AM  

Another private organization, The Hanso Foundation, has also funded some great work. Check it out at www.hansofoundation.org.

But, that said, think of all the awesome things people could do with government funding too.

I joke around a lot about being for smoking bans etc., but this time I'm serious: I'm all about government funding of science and research, as long as I get to choose what's funded:

1. Flying cars
2. Invisibility
3. Life Extension/Immortality
4. Time Travel
5. Genetic Enhancement
6. Diseases and stuff.

By  Greg Newburn, at Sat Jun 03, 08:36:00 AM  

mmm flying cars. i'd be fine with that too. and among some of the crazy gov't research projects that actually sounds semi-reasonable. in fact, NASA is working on it from what i hear.

my position on gov't funding of research is not surprising, but i can't talk really, because next week i'm re-writing an NIH grant proposal...

By  ns, at Sat Jun 03, 01:42:00 PM  

Seriously though. Don't you think government can do some real good in this area? I don't think the traditional critiques apply here, because there's not a disincentive to fail. If a scientist can discover a cure for AIDS, he can pitch another proposal and the chances of it being funded increase. So there's an incentive for success in science, unlike, say, environmental protection.

By  Greg, at Sat Jun 03, 10:49:00 PM  

gov’t research funding is certainly one of the least harmful programs, and i think libertarians might do better to worry about other areas first. going after NIH is probably counterproductive. and i think you’re right in part; reputation gives an incentive to succeed rather than fail.

yet there are some significant problems with government-funded research. often politically favorable outcomes only get renewed grants, which can be very dangerous because it spins research. politically fashionable outcomes get credibility, even if they are in the minority on that subject. this actually happened to my aunt, a researcher at wash. u.’s medical school. she was studying the effects of pollution, but this can also be the case for illegal drug research. another problem is that citizens are forced to pay for research they are morally opposed to (e.g. HIV studies on orphaned infants, studies on sexual practices, etc.). there are a host of other problems – NIH has recently come under fire for conflicts of interest in grant approval.

vernon smith may be a libertarian but does take NIH and other government money. he says it is better that he take it. maybe that’s just a rationalization, but he does have a point.

By  ns, at Sun Jun 04, 02:01:00 PM  

I guess there is the possibility that researrch can be tailored to suit political ends, but I think the desire to be right and to make great discoveries would trump those incentives in the long run.

As far as the moral problems go, I don't care. Just because some religious lunatic doesn't want to pay for AIDS vaccines because it's "God's revenge" on homosexuals doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to do it, and moral to boot.

I guess you'll always have political problems with political solutions, but given the awesome amount of good that can come from gov't. funding, I'm all for it. And I agree that it's nonsense for libertarians to attack this one first.

By  Greg, at Mon Jun 05, 04:17:00 PM  

although professional reputation makes people work towards what they think is right, i agree, i’m taking about the other side of the coin - a perverse process of unnatural selection goes on in which only politically favorable grants survive therefore distorting the entire research field. so you have 100 studies saying pollution is harmless and two saying it is bad, and those two get funded, therefore creating support for bad policy. the people selecting the renewals are reacting in part to political pressures, and the NSF also doesn't have as much of an incentive to be "right" because it’s a bureaucracy without reputational factors. but this may be an unavoidable problem when relying on grants and donations - it could very well be the case in an all-private scenario as well so this is not necessarily an attach on all government funding.

i kind of agree that some moral positions are so wrong we shouldn't factor them in, but shouldn’t there be some moral rules on what’s funded, and who determines what “non-lunatic” morals are enforced? personally, i don't like the idea of funding projects to experiment with dangerous HIV drugs on parentless infants and children, but others say that the sacrifice is worth it for the greater good of curing AIDS. i don’t know, but these are the problems that arise when it becomes a collective issue.

By  ns, at Mon Jun 05, 04:51:00 PM  

Congratulations. I am certainly hoping that you turn out most like Jessie Jackson. A penchant for rhyming prose might improve the digestability of neuroeconomic reseach.
"We've got to probe
The frontal lobe
To give your subliminal choice
An academic voice.
Can I get an Amen?"

JC

By  Anonymous, at Mon May 29, 09:11:00 AM  

HA. thanks, you :) i'll add that verse to my first academic paper.

but to succeed i "must know it is not my aptitude but my attitude that will determine my altitude."

By  ns, at Mon May 29, 11:42:00 AM  

congratulations!

By  David, at Mon Jun 12, 12:22:00 AM  

thanks! i will be at GMU util the end of August though, so you had better hang out with me. :)

By  ns, at Mon Jun 12, 09:26:00 AM