In his farewell speech, President Eisenhower famously warned of the undue influence of the military-industrial complex on government and politics. Perhaps less famously, in his very next thought, he also cautioned about the growing domination of government funding in scientific research:
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present â and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
His warning, issued 55 years ago, has not only come true, but has also foreshadowed the corruption of our tertiary educational system by public money.
Public voices, both on the Left and on the Right, have long been complaining about the corrosive effect of money in politics, and government efforts to combat undue influence of money go all the way back to the Tillman Act of 1907. People generally distrust the relationship between big-moneyed influence-seekers and elected politicians.
Why, then, do people think that publicly funded science is pure and untainted by politics? Academia is driven by the pursuit of funding, and things like publish-or-perish, the h-index, etc. create perverse incentives that are no different than those found in political circles.
Many assume that science funded by big corporations is tainted and suspect, so why wouldn’t they think the same about science funded by politicians? Or, for that matter, science funded by advocacy groups? Should we grant a greater presumption of purity a Greenpeace-funded report about whales than to one funded by a whaling company, or by the Japanese government?
Should we trust the government when it puts forth new dietary guidelines, when it provides us with a “food pyramid,” or rules about how much salt we should eat, or whether we should prefer margarine over butter, or about how much alcohol we should drink?
Should we presume that the global warming science that comes out of NASA or universities is free of bias, while all other science is tainted by special-interest money?
Why is it, when the FDA approves a drug that later turns out to have harmful side effects, we blame (and sue) Big Pharma instead of blaming the government?
The list goes on… but, this shouldn’t be taken as an indictment and dismissal of science. Science informs and improves our lives, and it is in its embrace that we enrich ourselves. We merely need to be leery of offering greater presumption of impartiality to some over others, when doing so flies in the face of what we know about human nature. As with everything else in life, it’s worth remembering that he who has the gold makes the rules. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Apply a dose of skepticism to every new thing you hear, especially when there’s a lot of money at play, and double-especially when there’s a lot of other public money at play.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters