Thanks,
Portable Storage,
http://www.moveablecubicle.com

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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