The secular version of the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) is: He who has the gold…rules. If you have ever worked for someone else, you know the one who signs the checks, calls the shots. So why should we be surprised when so many “scientific” studies and research projects seem unreasonable or flawed? If we wish to know why the final product may contain bias, all we have to do is follow the funding thread. “Pure” theoretical research is a rarity these days as most studies and investigations are funded by private corporations, the government or government-corporate partnerships. Applied research certainly is valuable for discovering new products, methods and uses, but the weakness we face in today’s research environment is that too much of the product is agenda driven. One of the great benefits of legitimate scientific inquiry is its predictive and replicable value. In other words, if the initial process is precisely followed, the outcome will always be the same.
Why is it that so much of our government-sponsored research leads to results that are difficult or impossible to integrate into the marketplace? For example…our government has been vigorously promoting solar and wind power generation for a number of years, but neither application has achieved economic viability despite subsidies, grants and government bribery for adopting them. It seems to me that the primary problem is not the technologies per se but rather the types of questions that we (the government and the associated industries) ask as we begin the quest. Instead of the government asking for new ventures to replace fossil fuels, they should be seeking low-input products that are competitive with existing fuels…actually government shouldn’t be involved in developing products or methods that compete with private sector companies and functions. Those are blatant attempts to pick winners and losers by distorting the marketplace while relying on bogus or premature science.
There are indeed some inquiries that may be legitimate for government to pursue. The Manhattan Project might be considered such a program although its success has ultimately endangered the globe. The research involved primary attempts to split the atom, and the private sector had not yet begun any type of nuclear usage because the phenomenal power contained in the atoms was not accessible. Therefore, without a clear private-sector need, the atomic research was basic in nature…seeking to discover methods for releasing the power and structures for controlling it. Despite its ultimate use, the atom-busting research is of the type that usually is best done by government or government-corporate partnerships. Basic research seeks answers, and applied research is directed toward using the basic research results for economic purposes.
When basic research and applied research are merged or telescoped by government or government-private cooperation, the end result is often unworkable, economically unviable, or useless. The problem is that the old progressive byword of “the ends justify the means” leaks into their scientific endeavors as well. They seem to suggest that “if we can design it and build it, you MUST use it to justify our high cost.” After committing so much to a huge questionable project, government becomes obligated to promote the result regardless of the soundness of its application. Government involvement in research should be limited to basic research and should steer clear of research applications. The private sector will detect and develop applications that will succeed in the marketplace.
Many of our most successful inventions or discoveries were identified while pursuing answers for non-related questions. Take the “Reese Cup” for example. Government’s quest for a specific outcome often blinds it to other useful applications that may be available for a product under development. An entrepreneur or marketing-oriented researcher will recognize new opportunities from what appears to be “failed” research projects. Government and government-sponsored private sector research probably misses too many potential opportunities for new innovation because their research is outcome directed rather the use oriented. Stated another way….Government offers a $10 million reward for a safe energy efficient light bulb, and Phillips-Conoco wins the prize by developing an LED model that sells for $50.00 each whereupon government is considering subsidizing the bulbs at a $45.00 rate … thus costing even more taxpayer dollars. This is nuts….but so are many of the new wave of cars that government is subsidizing or underwriting. Whenever government is involved in research and development….either through direct participation or via the grant route….the results are nearly always pre-ordained. Researchers want to keep the client happy and the tax dollars flowing.
Social science research and analysis follow a similar path as hard research. Most of the analysts have their own big-government agendas to promote and government is always seeking to expand its power. As a result, many of the social research “studies’ are nothing more than self-fulfilling prophecies that recommend the expansion of government services and influence. Because of government’s pervasive influence and distortion of hard science and social science research, its participation should be severely limited. When private sector entities provide research data, their results can be measured against those of their competitors, but government has no real competition. Without true competition we end up with incomplete, biased and distorted corruptions of science and statistical analysis that lead to costly and unworkable programs. It’s your basic lose-lose proposition. The jack-booted strong arm of government should not be dressed in white coats and pocket guards. Real progress is thwarted while the expansion of government thrives.
No comments:
Post a Comment