Putting those construction workers back to work

Thanks for the article.Your article was pretty informative and i hope that in future also i get these kind of article.

Thanks,
Portable Storage,
www.moveablecubicle.com

It's shovel ready, it puts people to work, it invests in the future, it builds on our advantages in bio-tech. What's not to like?

Remember the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, Daniel? Oh, wait that was before you were born. Here's a little education for you, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

What was it?

"a government entity intended to drive research into synthetic fuels and establish a synthetic fuels program that would lead to energy independence."

What's not to to like about that, daniel? It would put people to work, it would invest in the future, and it would help us achieve energy independence.

Did it work?

"Given that we still fill our tanks at the petrol pump and that almost no one under 25 has even heard of the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, the answer should be obvious: it was a colossal failure."

As explained in the National Academies Press:

"Political influence on funding allocation decisions, selection of R&D projects, or the direction and conduct of scientific research is counterproductive and damaging to the success of federal technology efforts."

Political influence, daniel. That's what is not to like. Massive failure and disruption of legitimate private R&D efforts, daniel. That's what is not to like.

RE: "Political influence, daniel. That's what is not to like. Massive failure and disruption of legitimate private R&D efforts, daniel. That's what is not to like."

Ah yes, the old "advocacy of a policy implies that you love poor implementation of a policy" fallacy. Sorry, it doesn't work that way johndewey. If it did then I could blame libertarians for any country that tries limited government unsuccessfully and descends into violent anarchy. But I can't blame libertarians for that because that's not what they advocate - the moment it degenerates they would withdraw their support.

I don't like political influence playing a role in these decisions either. I know it pains you, but we're in agreement on that one. Our private biotech industry is what it is today because of government funded research.

And yes, the SFC - a good old Glenn Beck favorite. First, there's nothing inherently wrong with making funds available that scientists who have promising work on synthetic fuels could draw on to fund their research. That's worlds different from creating a corporation to work on the project on a larger scale. But even if SFC wasn't as politically driven in its allocation of funding, the fact is some R&D fails. So? Is this surprising to you? That's part of the argument for government being involved in the first place - the extreme uncertainty of what kind of renumeration will come from the research, and in the case of more basic research, whether you'll be able to capture any of the gains in the first place. So the SFC was an example of bad industrial policy and bad research policy. I hardly see how it's an example of the problem with a well-run research program, like the money going out of the NIH that the article references.

"I don't like political influence playing a role in these decisions either."

Sure you don't. Trouble is, you're naive enough to believe that taxpayer funded programs can be free of political influence. Because you don't like it, I presume.

" there's nothing inherently wrong with making funds available that scientists who have promising work on synthetic fuels could draw on to fund their research. "

Right. Just make the funds available. So where do these available funds come from, daniel? If scientists are doing "promising work", why do the taxpayers need to fund it? Who decides that scientist A gets funding rather than scientists B, C, D, E, F, G, ....? Or do you propose that funds be "made available" to all scientists?

"I hardly see how it's an example of the problem with a well-run research program"

That's right. Taxpayer-funded programs which fail miserably were just not well-run. But your generation will be different, won't it? You'll ensure that funds are allocated efficiently.

Foolish dreamer! Pay for your dreams with your money. Keep your damned hands off mine.

Re: "Trouble is, you're naive enough to believe that taxpayer funded programs can be free of political influence."

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I believe that. I don't. Is this "let's have a real discussion" time or is this "johndewey gets to accuse you of whatever makes you seem stupid" time? It's really easy to win those sorts of arguments, johndewey - challenge yourself a little. Since the rest of your post is predicated on this one point I'm not even going to both continuing.

whoops, wrong spot.

muirbot still hasn't weighed in.

Interestingly, Prof. Roberts' colleague, Prof. Boudreaux, ran a series of posts entitled "Cleaned by Capitalism." Almost every post featured a product of science and technology. Where do they think that basic research is performed? How do they think it gets paid for? I'm sure there is waste and abuse in the grant system, but it also fuels the scientific progress that we all take for granted and enables us to provide those "cleaned by capitalism" products essential to the modern economy.

Metre - and where does the tax revenue to fund govt research come from? Yeah right from taxing capitalism. So in the end capitalism pays for it all.

Metre,

Do you have any evidence to share which shows how government-funded research led directly to the discovery and development of the products Professor Boudreaux listed in his posts? I just researched a few of the items he listed:

Plastics - Polyethylene developed by the British firm Imperial Chemical Industries; Polypropylene was developed by the Dutch firm Phillips Petroleum; Teflon was discovered by a DuPont scientist. The first two were discovered over 75 years ago. Any evidence that any government funded that development?

metal can - While it was Napolean who offerred a prize for development of the first metal can, it was not directed research but rather the trials and errors of profit-seeking entrepreneurs who competed feverishly in its development.

aluminum wire mesh screen - Aluminum was first produced at the University of Copenhagen, a Catholic university, in 1825. I was unable to find any evidence that public funding led to that discovery. Do you have any such evidence, Metre? It was Charles Martin Hull, funded by the Reduction Company of Pittsburgh (which became Alcoa), whose research led to a commercially viable method for aluminum development.

antibiotics - Penicillin was discovered at a British Imperial hospital. But it was research by Eli Lilly which led to the first cephalosporin. The first Sulfonamide was developed by Bayer AG.

There is no question that government funding has resulted in technological development. But it is not clear at all that government direction leads to an efficient method of allocating research dollars. Further, many if not most of today's technological advances did not depend on government funding.

Metre,

You seem to be forgetting the "Capitalism" part of Don's titles. The money to develop those products comes from voluntary capitalism, not from the forced redistribution of wealth from the populace to select scientists who can impress government bureaucrats with their grant proposals.

I've been an academic medicine physician, though not a grant writer. My observations of my colleagues indicate that at least 90% of medical research grant money is wasted. One colleague notes that his research isn't getting anywhere, but he's happy to be paid for doing "neat" studies on platelets. Others were doing offshoots of research that had failed, but they thought up a new slant that got their "research" funded. Other "research" includes tasks that medical centers would have to do regardless of NIH funding.

Given the amount of money in health care, there is no need for government funding. Between private organizations (March of Dimes, Muscular Dystrophy Association, American Lung Society, etc.) and industries (pharmaceutical, medical devices and equipment, nutrition and supplements, etc.), there is more than enough money to achieve medical progress.

Russ:

You know from having been there that WashU has been getting a lot of government money for a long time and they have always been shovel-ready at applying for grants. If they were to stop getting those government grants their tuition would have to go even higher and the students would be getting more government loans and grants for their tuition payments.

Either way WashU gets money from the government.

hmm...so, they got 200 grants, at an average of 400,000/grant. they applied for and did *not* get 700 more, so that's about $88,888/grant applied for. Make it an even $90,000/application that they need to break even. *Assuming* that it takes at least 3 grant writers 6 months to prepare a grant, you have to pull in $180k/year in grants to pay for those writers, giving them a $60k/year salary. I'll assume that one of them gets at least 80k/year, and the assistants get 50k/year each.

and...where's the money left over for research?

of course, in a 1 minute blog comment, I can't fully research or quantify the amounts, but they *do* seem reasonable. Add on top of that that Washington University is a very large medical research university, or so I believe, and I'm willing to bet that their grant writing teams are more effective than other teams at less effective schools.

Combine those schools in there, and I'm *quite* willing to bet that this is a net loser, in terms of social cost.

Sounds like schools need to get out of the grant writing business...but of course, when there's slop in the trough, as our hosts are wont to say, the pigs will fight to get at it. So there should be legislation banning grants...THAT certainly sounds like something politicians will be willing to go for! I mean, hey, it will certainly pass (or, rather, fail) a cost/benefit analysis, won't it??

If the average award is $400,000, that means the vast majority of the grants are NSF, not NIH. Regardless, outside of the medical school, all grants are written by professors, not grant writers. Medical schools sometimes employ grant writers because they have the money to pay them and because physician/researchers don't have time to also write grants. And they only need a couple grant writers in the med school. But the vast majority of grants are written by professors (and maybe some of it farmed out to postdocs and grad students).

Given that, your math doesn't make any sense. A $400,000 grant is a $400,000 grant--it is irrelevant how many grants a professor applied for (and, in fact, many of those professors might be getting multiple awards). Now the university does skim a lot of the top for "overhead," but that's another story altogether.

The fact that they're written by professors and not grant writers is irrelevant. Time is what matters, and it's being spent applying for "free" money. When that time is added up, it seems very likely that it is a net loss, which was my point.

a professorship in biomedical research is 80% begging the gov't. for money and 20% supervising grad student research.

And before you get cranky, remember that the scientists don't like it any better than you do.

zach; was that a comment toward me? because if it was, you're just making my point. :) for an individual professor, it makes perfect sense to fight to get at the trough, because if he doesn't, everyone else will, and he'll just be out in the cold w/o money (and w/o a professorship soon enough). That's why I said it would take legislation (essentially, the prohibition of politicians putting the slop *in* the trough), but of course politicians aren't going to do that, because that would mean less goodies for them to give out. It's a net loser, but perfectly rational given the incentives in place.

I didn't realize one needed shovels to study Alzheimer's and cancer. What does one use them for? Or shouldn't I ask?

Mengele could tell you all about that one.

I would like to see an analysis of special interest groups participation in receiving stimulus bucks. The largest recipient is state and local governments (the minor league, developing political snake oil merchants to serve in the federal government). Now the university community, incubator of leftist thought, is given similar treatment. Done to keep those compliant minds in proper collectivist working order and produce bias studies that support the socialist cause de jour. I have no doubt that once people realize how selectively this stimulus money was spent and how it was spent they will rise up and crush keynesian inspired socialism forever. I only hope that is that it happens before much more damage is done to our capitalist system.

Shovel ready projects require healthy shovelers.

Tis obviously money well granted.

What in this story gives any indication the money confiscated from my paycheck to give to the Wash U researchers was "well granted"? What benefits will be specifically gleaned from these studies that would not have come forward otherwise? If the benefits of these studies is so "obvious", why were no private funds made available?

vidyohs forgot his /sarcasm tag.

:-D

My bad, my sarcasm detector wasn't working properly. Unfortunately, I hear enough of those types of comments meant to be serious!

:-D S'okay Dave. We all see them. Just rest assured that when you see the name vidyohs, don't look for any kind of endorsement of socialist policies or actions, not even a remote chance.