The Wages of Science

In the United States, Congress approved, last month,Moreover, the conduits of government involvement
increases in the 2003 budgets of both the Nationalin research, the universities, are only weakly
Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation.correlated with growing prosperity. As Alison Wolf,
America is not alone in - vainly - trying toprofessor of education at the University of London
compensate for imploding capital markets andelucidates in her seminal tome "Does Education
risk-averse financiers.Matter? Myths about Education and Economic
In 1999, chancellor Gordon Brown inaugurated a $1.6Growth", published last year, extra years of schooling
billion program of "upgrading British science" andand wider access to university do not necessarily
commercializing its products. This was on top of $1translate to enhanced growth (though technological
billion invested between 1998-2002. The budgets ofinnovation clearly does).
the Medical Research Council and the BiotechnologyTerence Kealey, a clinical biochemist, vice-chancellor
and Biological Sciences Research Council wereof the University of Buckingham in England and
quadrupled overnight.author of "The Economic Laws of Scientific
The University Challenge Fund was set to provideResearch", is one of a growing band of scholars who
$100 million in seed money to cover costs related todispute the intuitive linkage between state-propped
the hiring of managerial skills, securing intellectualscience and economic progress. In an interview
property, constructing a prototype or preparing apublished last week by Scientific American, he
business plan. Another $30 million went to start-uprecounted how he discovered that:
funding of high-tech, high-risk companies in the UK."Of all the lead industrial countries, Japan - the
According to the United Nations Developmentcountry investing least in science - was growing
Programme (UNDP), the top 29 industrialized nationsfastest. Japanese science grew spectacularly under
invest in R&D more than $600 billion a year. The bulklaissez-faire. Its science was actually purer than that
of this capital is provided by the private sector. Inof the U.K. or the U.S. The countries with the next
the United Kingdom, for instance, government fundsleast investment were France and Germany, and
are dwarfed by private financing, according to thewere growing next fastest. And the countries with
British Venture Capital Association. More than $80the maximum investment were the U.S., Canada and
billion have been ploughed into 23,000 companiesU.K., all of which were doing very badly at the time."
since 1983, about half of them in the hi-tech sector.The Economist concurs: "it is hard for governments
Three million people are employed in these firms.to pick winners in technology." Innovation and science
Investments surged by 36 percent in 2001 to $18sprout in - or migrate to - locations with tough laws
billion.regarding intellectual property rights, a functioning
But this British exuberance is a global exception.financial system, a culture of "thinking outside the
Even the - white hot - life sciences field suffered anbox" and a tradition of excellence.
11 percent drop in venture capital investments lastGovernment can only remove obstacles - especially
year, reports the MoneyTree Survey. According tored tape and trade tariffs - and nudge things in the
the Ernst & Young 2002 Alberta Technology Reportright direction by investing in infrastructure and
released on Wednesday, the Canadian hi-tech sectorinstitutions. Tax incentives are essential initially. But if
is languishing with less than $3 billion invested in 2002the authorities meddle, they are bound to ruin
in seed capital - this despite generous matching fundsscience and be rued by scientists.
and tax credits proffered by many of the provincesStill, all forms of science funding - both public and
as well as the federal government.private - are lacking.
In Israel, venture capital plunged to $600 million lastState largesse is ideologically constrained,
year - one fifth its level in 2000. Aware of thisoft-misallocated, inefficient and erratic. In the United
cataclysmic reversal in investor sentiment, the IsraeliStates, mega projects, such as the Superconducting
government set up 24 hi-tech incubators. But theseSuper Collider, with billions already sunk in, have been
are able merely to partly cater to the pecuniaryabruptly discontinued as were numerous other
needs of less than 20 percent of the projectsdefense-related schemes. Additionally, some
submitted.knowledge gleaned in government-funded research is
As governments pick up the monumental slackbarred from the public domain.
created by the withdrawal of private funding, theyBut industrial money can be worse. It comes with
attempt to rationalize and economize.strings attached. The commercially detrimental results
The New Jersey Commission of Health Scienceof drug studies have been suppressed by corporate
Education and Training recently proposed to mergedonors on more than one occasion, for instance.
the state's three public research universities. SoaringCommercial entities are unlikely to support basic
federal and state budget deficits are likely to exertresearch as a public good, ultimately made available
added pressure on the already strained relationshipto their competitors as a "spillover benefit". This
between academe and state - especially with regardsunderstandable reluctance stifles innovation.
to research priorities and the allocation ofThere is no lack of suggestions on how to square
ever-scarcer resources.this circle.
This friction is inevitable because the interactionQuoted in the Philadelphia Business Journal, Donald
between technology and science is complex andDrakeman, CEO of the Princeton biotech company
ill-understood. Some technological advances spawnMedarex, proposed last month to encourage
new scientific fields - the steel industry gave birth topharmaceutical companies to shed technologies they
metallurgy, computers to computer science and thehave chosen to shelve: "Just like you see little
transistor to solid state physics. The discoveries ofcompanies coming out of the research being
science also lead, though usually circuitously, toconducted at Harvard and MIT in Massachusetts and
technological breakthroughs - consider the examplesStanford and Berkley in California, we could do it out
of semiconductors and biotechnology.of Johnson & Johnson and Merck."
Thus, it is safe to generalize and say that theThis would be the corporate equivalent of the
technology sector is only the more visible and alluringBayh-Dole Act of 1980. The statute made both
tip of the drabber iceberg of research andacademic institutions and researchers the owners of
development. The military, universities, institutes andinventions or discoveries financed by government
industry all over the world plough hundreds of billionsagencies. This unleashed a wave of unprecedented
annually into both basic and applied studies. Butself-financing entrepreneurship.
governments are the most important sponsors ofIn the two decades that followed, the number of
pure scientific pursuits by a long shot.patents registered to universities increased tenfold
Science is widely perceived as a public good - itsand they spun off more than 2200 firms to
benefits are shared. Rational individuals would do wellcommercialize the fruits of research. In the process,
to sit back and copy the outcomes of research -they generated $40 billion in gross national product
rather than produce widely replicated discoveriesand created 260,000 jobs.
themselves. The government has to step in toNone of this was government financed - though,
provide them with incentives to innovate.according to The Economist's Technology Quarterly,
Thus, in the minds of most laymen and many$1 in research usually requires up to $10,000 in capital
economists, science is associated exclusively withto get to market. This suggests a clear and mutually
publicly-funded universities and the defenseprofitable division of labor - governments should picks
establishment. Inventions such as the jet aircraft andup the tab for basic research, private capital should
the Internet are often touted as examples of thedo the rest, stimulated by the transfer of intellectual
civilian benefits of publicly funded military research.property from state to entrepreneurs.
The pharmaceutical, biomedical, informationBut this raises a host of contentious issues.
technology and space industries, for instance - thoughSuch a scheme may condition industry to depend on
largely private - rely heavily on the fruits ofthe state for advances in pure science, as a kind of
nonrivalrous (i.e. public domain) science sponsored byhidden subsidy. Research priorities are bound to be
the state.politicized and lead to massive misallocation of scarce
The majority of 501 corporations surveyed by theeconomic resources through pork barrel politics and
Department of Finance and Revenue Canada inthe imposition of "national goals". NASA, with its "let's
1995-6 reported that government funding improvedput a man on the moon (before the Soviets do)" and
their internal cash flow - an important consideration inthe inane International Space Station is a sad
the decision to undertake research and development.manifestation of such dangers.
Most beneficiaries claimed the tax incentives forScience is the only public good that is produced by
seven years and recorded employment growth.individuals rather than collectives. This inner conflict is
In the absence of efficient capital markets anddifficult to resolve. On the one hand, why should the
adventuresome capitalists, some developing countriespublic purse enrich entrepreneurs? On the other hand,
have taken this propensity to extremes. In theprofit-driven investors seek temporary monopolies in
Philippines, close to 100 percent of all R&D isthe form of intellectual property rights. Why would
government-financed. The meltdown of foreign directthey share this cornucopia with others, as pure
investment flows - they declined by nearly threescientists are compelled to do?
fifths since 2000 - only rendered state involvementThe partnership between basic research and applied
more indispensable.science has always been an uneasy one. It has
But this is not a universal trend. South Korea, forgrown more so as monetary returns on scientific
instance, effected a successful transition to privateinsight have soared and as capital available for
venture capital which now - even after the Asiancommercialization multiplied. The future of science
turmoil of 1997 and the global downturn of 2001 -itself is at stake.
amounts to four fifths of all spending on R&D.Were governments to exit the field, basic research
Thus, supporting ubiquitous governmentwould likely crumble. Were they to micromanage it -
entanglement in science is overdoing it. Most appliedapplied science and entrepreneurship would suffer. It
R&D is still conducted by privately owned industrialis a fine balancing act and, judging by the state of
outfits. Even "pure" science - unadulterated by greedboth universities and startups, a precarious one as
and commerce - is sometimes bankrolled by privatewell.
endowments and foundations.