Also, a note to self

[rebeccmeister]

This may end up being a backwards discussion with myself about science policy in the US.

I got into an interesting conversation with my friend R about the problem of how many economists/policy makers/media figures/people discussing the relationship between science and economics try to use the GDP as a common currency or measure of success. It came up in our discussion of measures of scientific progress and the purpose of basic scientific research (which must be distinguished from applied research like that conducted in the fields of health or technology).

I had basically spat out the Official [scientist] Party Line, which is that the US should fund more basic research because it is tied to progress in the competitive international market. It's obviously a self-serving argument for people in my shoes because I enjoy what I do and would like to be more certain that I'll be able to keep doing what I do. But is that really a sufficient argument for science? No, not really.

I have to go back to the idea that we humans are naturally curious about the world around us and would like to understand it, and part of gaining that understanding involves scrutiny in the name of science. I also have to go back to thinking about one of my favorite scientists, Bert Hoelldobler, who still expresses that basic joy in telling the stories of the ants.

This process of finding direction and meaning in my life's work, it is neverending.

Comments

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

I do not believe the US government has any obligation at all to fund basic science (this opinion is based largely on what its responsibilities are as laid out in the COnstitution). Do I believe they should do it? Hell, yeah .... because it turns out to be a great investment. It helps both the government and more importantly the country as a whole become more healthy, comfortable and prosperous. Lots of science won't have this effect at all, of course, but you really can't know in advance which will and which won't, so it's a good idea to think broadly.

[rebeccmeister.livejournal.com]

It helps both the government and more importantly the country as a whole become more healthy, comfortable and prosperous.

I thought the most interesting part of my conversation with R was about the kind of investment that we're making. Is it really just about becoming more healthy, comfortable, and prosperous? If so, then given the amount of money the US government invests in health-related science, why are Americans still so unhealthy? Why are obesity rates at an all-time high? Why do so many go without health care or understanding of basic features of preventative medicine? There's a disconnect somewhere.

Clearly, if that's the point of government-funded research, we're not doing it right, especially if we look at this from the perspective of how much money is invested in different aspects of research (the National Institute of Health's budget is around $28 billion dollars; the National Science Foundation 2007 budget was $5.6 billion). And also, who really becomes more prosperous, and what does that prosperity do for us?

Why do I do research? I could easily claim that I do the work I do in economic terms (leafcutter ants are a major crop pest throughout Central and South America). I could just as easily claim that I do the work I do out of a fascination with the living world and a curiosity to understand it. And I'm constantly amazed by how readily other people pick up on and appreciate this aspect of my work.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Two points, in reverse order:
"I could just as easily claim that I do the work I do out of a fascination with the living world and a curiosity to understand it. "
Which is and should be a major reason why scientists to research - when you have basic researchers who prize the potential gian from their work above the importance of finding out how things really work, you begin to run a risk of bad reaseach. But that's not the same as saying it should be the government's motivation for spending taxpayer money on it - they need to be a bit more hardheaded. (Which doesn't mean that should apply to everyone who funds research - universities are supposed to care about finding out how things work (even if they have government grants - that's one way of making sure the money gets spread widely) and private funds answer to whoever controls them.

"If so, then given the amount of money the US government invests in health-related science, why are Americans still so unhealthy? ">
We know quite a lot now about how to be healthy - but knowing something doesn't always mean people will do it. Science affects the level of our knowledge, but can't control our motivations or what we do with what we know. Also, it's not just the US - people all over the world live longer because of what US scientists find (just as Americans benefit from researchers elsewhere). We can produce more than enough food to feed all of our people, which wasn't always true - but that doesn't mean they won't eat more than they need. As for Americans being so unhealthy - well, we're not as healthy as we could be, but you could reasonably expect to wait until 30 or 35 to have a kid, have that kid survive to adulthood and then still be there to watch that kid grow up and have kids of her own. In the "good old days" there weren't very good odds of that (I have very limited patience with anyone who talks about the "good old days", but most especially with anyone who's a parent.) That's thanks to a lot of what we've learned in the last few hundred years - more public health than medicine, actually, but still science.

[earthlingmike.livejournal.com]

Our government funds industries who have lobbiests who fund the politicians.

What our government should fund, I think is a matter of what the people of America want, that's what democracy in theory is all about.

[earthlingmike.livejournal.com]

Simple curiosity is why we have National Geographic magazine, and it's why we have fields like astronomy or evolution. And the same thing that gave us evolution gave us creationism and other such stories, depending on culture; the desire to have so explanation for where everything comes from.