Ronald Bailey at Reason has an interesting theory: Federal funding drives out private funding for research resulting in a net loss (or at least no change) for researchers. His best example is what has happened during the ban on Federal money for embryonic stem cell research. Since the Federal funding has dried up, the researchers involved have been being supplemented by private funding.
Money quote:
When Bush first restricted federal funding to embryonic stem lines derived before his nationally televised speech on the subject in 2001, researchers feared that such limits would send a signal that would strongly "chill" research in the field. For example, many researchers worried that Sen. Sam Brownback's (R-Kan.) bill to ban both publicly and privately financed therapeutic cloning research was just the first step toward outlawing all human embryonic stem cell research. But that didn't happen.
Instead, the research restrictions -- real and proposed -- provoked a strong pushback by researchers and eventually the public. States began big time funding of embryonic stem cell research, e.g., $3 billion in California and $270 million in New Jersey. And the floodgates of private funding opened, showering hundreds of millions on stem cell researchers. It is highly probable that far more embryos have been used for stem cell research than would have been the case had President Bush not imposed his restrictions. How's that for irony!...
Instead of being modeled on drug development, perhaps embryonic stem cell research will follow a development path more like that blazed by researchers in assisted reproduction. Rather than being hampered by a paucity of federal research funding perhaps embryonic stem cell research will flourish just as research on assisted reproduction techniques (ART) has. Arguably in vitro fertilization research has proceeded rapidly because of, not in spite of, essentially no federal funding. So far more than 3 million babies have been born by means of ART. Without intrusive federal oversight and regulation IVF researchers have been able to deploy new techniques such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, and sperm sorting for sex selection very shortly after they have been developed.
...
It is a truism among academic researchers and many economists that Federal funding is necessary for basic research and that such funding is perpetually inadequate. However, a 2001 study by Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development researchers found that in fact that higher spending by industry on R&D correlates nicely with higher economic growth rates. In contrast to the academic truisms about the need for Federal funding, the study found that "business-performed R&D...drives the positive association between total R&D intensity and output growth."
This private funding does not necessarily need to come from corporations. In many cases, it is coming from private concerned individuals or from charitable institutions. I know from on-the-grapevine reports that in some cases stem cell researchers have more money from private individuals than they reasonably know what to do with. For example, UCSF got so much money they decided to build another entire new building.
As I have said previously on this blog, I favor more Federal funding for science. I also think that the Federal ban should be lifted.
However, Bailey makes an interesting, if provocative, point. The Feds are not the only people out there handing out money. Even if you don't want to take corporate money for ethical reasons, charitable institutions and individuals care about these issues and are willing to vote with their pocketbooks. If scientists took a broader view of funding, rather than focusing exclusively on government hand-outs, they would mostly certainly benefit. They would get their money, and they wouldn't have to deal with politicians or NIH study-sections nearly as much -- something that we would all love.
It goes to the issue of whether you can oppose government subsidy and still be a scientist. As a principle, I don't trust the government handing out money (even if for a practical matter I have to take it). On the other hand, you could reasonably argue that the Federal money in this case is competing the private money out of existence -- that we only realize how much private money there is out there when the Federal money is taken away.
- Log in to post comments
For example, UCSF got so much money they decided to build another entire new building.
I think it's more accurate to say that this building had to be built because no federal money was forthcoming.
Moreover, while some researchers may not be aware of how much private money is out there, other researcher and, most particularly, fundraisers are quite aware of that private money. And frankly, the reason why private money is being raised in this area is BECAUSE federal money is not being devoted to it, and there is such a public ruckus about it.
Generally, people give big money because of personal interest, and because they have a passion for the area where the money goes. Having federal money in that area doesn't kill the passion---people generally think, "Well, maybe my gift can do MORE." The LACK of federal money CAN inspire passion.
I wonder if government could focus more on filling the gaps and looking at funding research that private sources are unlikely to fund. For example, there's recently been news of a promising anti-cancer drug that no pharmaceutical firm is going to bother with because the drugs is a known chemical - it can't be patented.
the author sounds like he's being difficult. the stem cell ban doesn't help scientists. from my understanding it limits them because they have fewer stem cell lines to work with than if the ban had not been put in place. the financial aspects can be argued, and he does so relatively well, but its a secondary issue to the limitation of stem cell lines. i think that the money will always be there for something of this magnitude.
ilya - You misunderstand that nature of the federal policy in question. The limitations on which SC lines can be studied applies only to federally funded research. Researchers working with other funding sources are free to study whatever SC lines they can get their hands on.
sir,
how can one honestly quote that reactionary ideologue ron bailey??? his arguments are riddled with anti-progressive & anti-choice bias!
i had no clue that it worked that way. i live in california and i was completely unaware. but even in light of that, i still disagree with bailey.
My biggest problem with this idea is that private funding is (almost always) interested in things with immediate practical applications. Areas like astrophysics (which I want to go into) or particle physics, which are just the first two examples to come to my head, are both horribly expensive and have no obvious practical applications beyond expanding our knowledge base. Of course, I think that makes it well worth the cost, but I wouldn't want to convince a corporation or private donor of that.