The Wages of Science

In the United States, Congress approved, lastgovernment involvement in research, the
month, increases in the 2003 budgets of both theuniversities, are only weakly correlated with
National Institutes of Health and National Sciencegrowing prosperity. As Alison Wolf, professor of
Foundation. America is not alone in - vainly - tryingeducation at the University of London elucidates in
to compensate for imploding capital markets andher seminal tome "Does Education Matter? Myths
risk-averse financiers.In 1999, chancellor Gordonabout Education and Economic Growth", published
Brown inaugurated a $1.6 billion program oflast year, extra years of schooling and wider
"upgrading British science" and commercializing itsaccess to university do not necessarily translate
products. This was on top of $1 billion investedto enhanced growth (though technological
between 1998-2002. The budgets of the Medicalinnovation clearly does).Terence Kealey, a clinical
Research Council and the Biotechnology andbiochemist, vice-chancellor of the University of
Biological Sciences Research Council wereBuckingham in England and author of "The
quadrupled overnight.The University Challenge FundEconomic Laws of Scientific Research", is one of
was set to provide $100 million in seed money toa growing band of scholars who dispute the
cover costs related to the hiring of managerialintuitive linkage between state-propped science
skills, securing intellectual property, constructing aand economic progress. In an interview published
prototype or preparing a business plan. Anotherlast week by Scientific American, he recounted
$30 million went to start-up funding of high-tech,how he discovered that:"Of all the lead industrial
high-risk companies in the UK.According to thecountries, Japan - the country investing least in
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),science - was growing fastest. Japanese science
the top 29 industrialized nations invest in R&Dgrew spectacularly under laissez-faire. Its science
more than $600 billion a year. The bulk of thiswas actually purer than that of the U.K. or the
capital is provided by the private sector. In theU.S. The countries with the next least investment
United Kingdom, for instance, government fundswere France and Germany, and were growing
are dwarfed by private financing, according to thenext fastest. And the countries with the
British Venture Capital Association. More than $80maximum investment were the U.S., Canada and
billion have been ploughed into 23,000 companiesU.K., all of which were doing very badly at the
since 1983, about half of them in the hi-techtime."The Economist concurs: "it is hard for
sector. Three million people are employed in thesegovernments to pick winners in technology."
firms. Investments surged by 36 percent in 2001Innovation and science sprout in - or migrate to -
to $18 billion.But this British exuberance is a globallocations with tough laws regarding intellectual
exception.Even the - white hot - life sciences fieldproperty rights, a functioning financial system, a
suffered an 11 percent drop in venture capitalculture of "thinking outside the box" and a tradition
investments last year, reports the MoneyTreeof excellence.Government can only remove
Survey. According to the Ernst & Young 2002obstacles - especially red tape and trade tariffs -
Alberta Technology Report released onand nudge things in the right direction by investing
Wednesday, the Canadian hi-tech sector isin infrastructure and institutions. Tax incentives are
languishing with less than $3 billion invested in 2002essential initially. But if the authorities meddle, they
in seed capital - this despite generous matchingare bound to ruin science and be rued by
funds and tax credits proffered by many of thescientists.Still, all forms of science funding - both
provinces as well as the federal government.Inpublic and private - are lacking.State largesse is
Israel, venture capital plunged to $600 million lastideologically constrained, oft-misallocated, inefficient
year - one fifth its level in 2000. Aware of thisand erratic. In the United States, mega projects,
cataclysmic reversal in investor sentiment, thesuch as the Superconducting Super Collider, with
Israeli government set up 24 hi-tech incubators.billions already sunk in, have been abruptly
But these are able merely to partly cater to thediscontinued as were numerous other
pecuniary needs of less than 20 percent of thedefense-related schemes. Additionally, some
projects submitted.As governments pick up theknowledge gleaned in government-funded
monumental slack created by the withdrawal ofresearch is barred from the public domain.But
private funding, they attempt to rationalize andindustrial money can be worse. It comes with
economize.The New Jersey Commission of Healthstrings attached. The commercially detrimental
Science Education and Training recently proposedresults of drug studies have been suppressed by
to merge the state's three public researchcorporate donors on more than one occasion, for
universities. Soaring federal and state budgetinstance. Commercial entities are unlikely to
deficits are likely to exert added pressure on thesupport basic research as a public good, ultimately
already strained relationship between academemade available to their competitors as a "spillover
and state - especially with regards to researchbenefit". This understandable reluctance stifles
priorities and the allocation of ever-scarcerinnovation.There is no lack of suggestions on how
resources.This friction is inevitable because theto square this circle.Quoted in the Philadelphia
interaction between technology and science isBusiness Journal, Donald Drakeman, CEO of the
complex and ill-understood. Some technologicalPrinceton biotech company Medarex, proposed
advances spawn new scientific fields - the steellast month to encourage pharmaceutical
industry gave birth to metallurgy, computers tocompanies to shed technologies they have chosen
computer science and the transistor to solid stateto shelve: "Just like you see little companies
physics. The discoveries of science also lead,coming out of the research being conducted at
though usually circuitously, to technologicalHarvard and MIT in Massachusetts and Stanford
breakthroughs - consider the examples ofand Berkley in California, we could do it out of
semiconductors and biotechnology.Thus, it is safeJohnson & Johnson and Merck."This would be the
to generalize and say that the technology sectorcorporate equivalent of the Bayh-Dole Act of
is only the more visible and alluring tip of the1980. The statute made both academic institutions
drabber iceberg of research and development.and researchers the owners of inventions or
The military, universities, institutes and industry alldiscoveries financed by government agencies. This
over the world plough hundreds of billions annuallyunleashed a wave of unprecedented self-financing
into both basic and applied studies. Butentrepreneurship.In the two decades that
governments are the most important sponsors offollowed, the number of patents registered to
pure scientific pursuits by a long shot.Science isuniversities increased tenfold and they spun off
widely perceived as a public good - its benefitsmore than 2200 firms to commercialize the fruits
are shared. Rational individuals would do well to sitof research. In the process, they generated $40
back and copy the outcomes of research - ratherbillion in gross national product and created
than produce widely replicated discoveries260,000 jobs.None of this was government
themselves. The government has to step in tofinanced - though, according to The Economist's
provide them with incentives to innovate.Thus, inTechnology Quarterly, $1 in research usually
the minds of most laymen and many economists,requires up to $10,000 in capital to get to market.
science is associated exclusively withThis suggests a clear and mutually profitable
publicly-funded universities and the defensedivision of labor - governments should picks up
establishment. Inventions such as the jet aircraftthe tab for basic research, private capital should
and the Internet are often touted as examples ofdo the rest, stimulated by the transfer of
the civilian benefits of publicly funded militaryintellectual property from state to
research. The pharmaceutical, biomedical,entrepreneurs.But this raises a host of contentious
information technology and space industries, forissues.Such a scheme may condition industry to
instance - though largely private - rely heavily ondepend on the state for advances in pure science,
the fruits of nonrivalrous (i.e. public domain)as a kind of hidden subsidy. Research priorities are
science sponsored by the state.The majority ofbound to be politicized and lead to massive
501 corporations surveyed by the Department ofmisallocation of scarce economic resources
Finance and Revenue Canada in 1995-6 reportedthrough pork barrel politics and the imposition of
that government funding improved their internal"national goals". NASA, with its "let's put a man on
cash flow - an important consideration in thethe moon (before the Soviets do)" and the inane
decision to undertake research and development.International Space Station is a sad manifestation
Most beneficiaries claimed the tax incentives forof such dangers.Science is the only public good
seven years and recorded employment growth.Inthat is produced by individuals rather than
the absence of efficient capital markets andcollectives. This inner conflict is difficult to resolve.
adventuresome capitalists, some developingOn the one hand, why should the public purse
countries have taken this propensity to extremes.enrich entrepreneurs? On the other hand,
In the Philippines, close to 100 percent of all R&Dprofit-driven investors seek temporary
is government-financed. The meltdown of foreignmonopolies in the form of intellectual property
direct investment flows - they declined by nearlyrights. Why would they share this cornucopia with
three fifths since 2000 - only rendered stateothers, as pure scientists are compelled to
involvement more indispensable.But this is not ado?The partnership between basic research and
universal trend. South Korea, for instance,applied science has always been an uneasy one. It
effected a successful transition to private venturehas grown more so as monetary returns on
capital which now - even after the Asian turmoilscientific insight have soared and as capital
of 1997 and the global downturn of 2001 -available for commercialization multiplied. The
amounts to four fifths of all spending onfuture of science itself is at stake.Were
R&D.Thus, supporting ubiquitous governmentgovernments to exit the field, basic research
entanglement in science is overdoing it. Mostwould likely crumble. Were they to micromanage
applied R&D is still conducted by privately ownedit - applied science and entrepreneurship would
industrial outfits. Even "pure" science -suffer. It is a fine balancing act and, judging by
unadulterated by greed and commerce - isthe state of both universities and startups, a
sometimes bankrolled by private endowmentsprecarious one as well.
and foundations.Moreover, the conduits of