The Wages of Science

In the United States, Congress approved, last month,endowments and foundations.Moreover, the conduits
increases in the 2003 budgets of both the Nationalof government involvement in research, the universities,
Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation.are only weakly correlated with growing prosperity. As
America is not alone in - vainly - trying to compensateAlison Wolf, professor of education at the University
for imploding capital markets and risk-averseof London elucidates in her seminal tome "Does
financiers.In 1999, chancellor Gordon Brown inauguratedEducation Matter? Myths about Education and
a $1.6 billion program of "upgrading British science" andEconomic Growth", published last year, extra years of
commercializing its products. This was on top of $1schooling and wider access to university do not
billion invested between 1998-2002. The budgets of thenecessarily translate to enhanced growth (though
Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology andtechnological innovation clearly does).Terence Kealey,
Biological Sciences Research Council were quadrupleda clinical biochemist, vice-chancellor of the University of
overnight.The University Challenge Fund was set toBuckingham in England and author of "The Economic
provide $100 million in seed money to cover costsLaws of Scientific Research", is one of a growing
related to the hiring of managerial skills, securingband of scholars who dispute the intuitive linkage
intellectual property, constructing a prototype orbetween state-propped science and economic
preparing a business plan. Another $30 million went toprogress. In an interview published last week by
start-up funding of high-tech, high-risk companies in theScientific American, he recounted how he discovered
UK.According to the United Nations Developmentthat:"Of all the lead industrial countries, Japan - the
Programme (UNDP), the top 29 industrialized nationscountry investing least in science - was growing
invest in R&D more than $600 billion a year. The bulkfastest. Japanese science grew spectacularly under
of this capital is provided by the private sector. In thelaissez-faire. Its science was actually purer than that of
United Kingdom, for instance, government funds arethe U.K. or the U.S. The countries with the next least
dwarfed by private financing, according to the Britishinvestment were France and Germany, and were
Venture Capital Association. More than $80 billion havegrowing next fastest. And the countries with the
been ploughed into 23,000 companies since 1983,maximum investment were the U.S., Canada and U.K.,
about half of them in the hi-tech sector. Three millionall of which were doing very badly at the time."The
people are employed in these firms. InvestmentsEconomist concurs: "it is hard for governments to pick
surged by 36 percent in 2001 to $18 billion.But thiswinners in technology." Innovation and science sprout in
British exuberance is a global exception.Even the -- or migrate to - locations with tough laws regarding
white hot - life sciences field suffered an 11 percentintellectual property rights, a functioning financial system,
drop in venture capital investments last year, reportsa culture of "thinking outside the box" and a tradition of
the MoneyTree Survey. According to the Ernst &excellence.Government can only remove obstacles -
Young 2002 Alberta Technology Report released onespecially red tape and trade tariffs - and nudge things
Wednesday, the Canadian hi-tech sector is languishingin the right direction by investing in infrastructure and
with less than $3 billion invested in 2002 in seed capitalinstitutions. Tax incentives are essential initially. But if the
- this despite generous matching funds and tax creditsauthorities meddle, they are bound to ruin science and
proffered by many of the provinces as well as thebe rued by scientists.Still, all forms of science funding -
federal government.In Israel, venture capital plunged toboth public and private - are lacking.State largesse is
$600 million last year - one fifth its level in 2000. Awareideologically constrained, oft-misallocated, inefficient and
of this cataclysmic reversal in investor sentiment, theerratic. In the United States, mega projects, such as
Israeli government set up 24 hi-tech incubators. Butthe Superconducting Super Collider, with billions already
these are able merely to partly cater to the pecuniarysunk in, have been abruptly discontinued as were
needs of less than 20 percent of the projectsnumerous other defense-related schemes. Additionally,
submitted.As governments pick up the monumentalsome knowledge gleaned in government-funded
slack created by the withdrawal of private funding,research is barred from the public domain.But industrial
they attempt to rationalize and economize.The Newmoney can be worse. It comes with strings attached.
Jersey Commission of Health Science Education andThe commercially detrimental results of drug studies
Training recently proposed to merge the state's threehave been suppressed by corporate donors on more
public research universities. Soaring federal and statethan one occasion, for instance. Commercial entities
budget deficits are likely to exert added pressure onare unlikely to support basic research as a public good,
the already strained relationship between academeultimately made available to their competitors as a
and state - especially with regards to research"spillover benefit". This understandable reluctance stifles
priorities and the allocation of ever-scarcerinnovation.There is no lack of suggestions on how to
resources.This friction is inevitable because thesquare this circle.Quoted in the Philadelphia Business
interaction between technology and science isJournal, Donald Drakeman, CEO of the Princeton
complex and ill-understood. Some technologicalbiotech company Medarex, proposed last month to
advances spawn new scientific fields - the steelencourage pharmaceutical companies to shed
industry gave birth to metallurgy, computers totechnologies they have chosen to shelve: "Just like you
computer science and the transistor to solid statesee little companies coming out of the research being
physics. The discoveries of science also lead, thoughconducted at Harvard and MIT in Massachusetts and
usually circuitously, to technological breakthroughs -Stanford and Berkley in California, we could do it out of
consider the examples of semiconductors andJohnson & Johnson and Merck."This would be the
biotechnology.Thus, it is safe to generalize and say thatcorporate equivalent of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980.
the technology sector is only the more visible andThe statute made both academic institutions and
alluring tip of the drabber iceberg of research andresearchers the owners of inventions or discoveries
development. The military, universities, institutes andfinanced by government agencies. This unleashed a
industry all over the world plough hundreds of billionswave of unprecedented self-financing
annually into both basic and applied studies. Butentrepreneurship.In the two decades that followed, the
governments are the most important sponsors of purenumber of patents registered to universities increased
scientific pursuits by a long shot.Science is widelytenfold and they spun off more than 2200 firms to
perceived as a public good - its benefits are shared.commercialize the fruits of research. In the process,
Rational individuals would do well to sit back and copythey generated $40 billion in gross national product and
the outcomes of research - rather than producecreated 260,000 jobs.None of this was government
widely replicated discoveries themselves. Thefinanced - though, according to The Economist's
government has to step in to provide them withTechnology Quarterly, $1 in research usually requires
incentives to innovate.Thus, in the minds of mostup to $10,000 in capital to get to market. This suggests
laymen and many economists, science is associateda clear and mutually profitable division of labor -
exclusively with publicly-funded universities and thegovernments should picks up the tab for basic
defense establishment. Inventions such as the jetresearch, private capital should do the rest, stimulated
aircraft and the Internet are often touted as examplesby the transfer of intellectual property from state to
of the civilian benefits of publicly funded militaryentrepreneurs.But this raises a host of contentious
research. The pharmaceutical, biomedical, informationissues.Such a scheme may condition industry to
technology and space industries, for instance - thoughdepend on the state for advances in pure science, as
largely private - rely heavily on the fruits of nonrivalrousa kind of hidden subsidy. Research priorities are bound
(i.e. public domain) science sponsored by the state.Theto be politicized and lead to massive misallocation of
majority of 501 corporations surveyed by thescarce economic resources through pork barrel politics
Department of Finance and Revenue Canada inand the imposition of "national goals". NASA, with its
1995-6 reported that government funding improved"let's put a man on the moon (before the Soviets do)"
their internal cash flow - an important consideration inand the inane International Space Station is a sad
the decision to undertake research and development.manifestation of such dangers.Science is the only
Most beneficiaries claimed the tax incentives for sevenpublic good that is produced by individuals rather than
years and recorded employment growth.In thecollectives. This inner conflict is difficult to resolve. On
absence of efficient capital markets andthe one hand, why should the public purse enrich
adventuresome capitalists, some developing countriesentrepreneurs? On the other hand, profit-driven
have taken this propensity to extremes. In theinvestors seek temporary monopolies in the form of
Philippines, close to 100 percent of all R&D isintellectual property rights. Why would they share this
government-financed. The meltdown of foreign directcornucopia with others, as pure scientists are
investment flows - they declined by nearly three fifthscompelled to do?The partnership between basic
since 2000 - only rendered state involvement moreresearch and applied science has always been an
indispensable.But this is not a universal trend. Southuneasy one. It has grown more so as monetary
Korea, for instance, effected a successful transition toreturns on scientific insight have soared and as capital
private venture capital which now - even after theavailable for commercialization multiplied. The future of
Asian turmoil of 1997 and the global downturn of 2001 -science itself is at stake.Were governments to exit the
amounts to four fifths of all spending on R&D.Thus,field, basic research would likely crumble. Were they to
supporting ubiquitous government entanglement inmicromanage it - applied science and entrepreneurship
science is overdoing it. Most applied R&D is stillwould suffer. It is a fine balancing act and, judging by
conducted by privately owned industrial outfits. Eventhe state of both universities and startups, a precarious
"pure" science - unadulterated by greed andone as well.
commerce - is sometimes bankrolled by private