The NY Times (March 15) had an interesting article on the increasing
degree to which the ultra-rich have been contributing to the funding of science
even as federal support for research has been stagnant. If one accepts the
premise (which I don’t) that it is OK for society to allow a few individuals to
become so egregiously wealthy that they can give away hundreds of millions,
then it is probably a good thing that the money is being used to support
science rather than being expended on yachts and fancy homes. However, there
are several downsides to this trend.
First of all, when
billionaires fund science the inevitable result is extreme elitism. Most of the
money goes to the Harvards and Stanfords of the world. However, while there is
clearly outstanding science done at these elite institutions there is also
great science at mid-level public and private universities. When I think of
recent major advances my own field of biomedical research what jumps to mind is
RNA interference (from U. Massachusetts and the Carnegie Institution),
homologous recombination (to make genetically altered mice)(from U. Wisconsin
and U. Utah), and human stem cell technology (U. Wisconsin). All of these
incredibly important breakthroughs came from publically funded research at
excellent but not ultra-prestigious institutions. While welcoming private
contributions to science we need to understand that they can never replace the
broad and diverse science funding that comes from federal sources. A scary
thought is that some of our ultra-conservative political nitwits are going to
use this trend an excuse to attack federal funding of science. Having been
around for a while, this reminds me of Reagan’s comments early in his
Presidency about wanting to replace the NIH with private funding from drug
companies. Considering that the pharmaceutical industry has now almost
completely eviscerated its basic research programs we would now be in quite a
pickle if Reagan had followed through.
Second, the process by which
some investigators have been able to tap into this largess really gives me the
creeps. The idea of a 30 second “elevator pitch” to spark a busy donor’s
interest with Tweet-like brevity just contradicts the whole concept of
evaluating the quality of science on a considered and rational basis.
Third, the sponsored science
will inevitably reflect the donor’s interests and perhaps political
orientation. Do we really want the Koch brothers funding climate science? At a
less extreme level many of the projects mentioned in the Times article barely
qualify as science. Private space flights or deep-sea dives are fun ideas and
do spark public interest in technology. However, they are trivial in terms of
real scientific advances. To be fair private funds have supported many worthwhile
developments in science. For example, while it has some critics, the Gates
Foundation has revolutionized R&D in the tropical medicine field. The
Howard Hughes operation (interestingly not mentioned in the Times article) has
supported high quality basic biomedical research for many years. Ultimately,
however, the science being done will reflect the interests of the donor and not
necessarily the most urgent needs of the field of research.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html?ref=science
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html?ref=science
No comments:
Post a Comment