Nobel laureates sound alarm argentina cuts science fundingwww.reuters.com/science/nobel-laureates-sound-alarm-argentina-cuts-science-funding-2024-03-06/
1284 sats \ 5 comments \ @south_korea_ln 7 Mar science
Non-paywalled: https://archive.md/i1Tg3
As a scientist, this is quite alarming to me.
But let's have a bigger discussion.
In the libertarian mindset, how does the funding of fundamental science fit in? All my research is funded by government money. Few private companies would invest in fundamental research that might only pay off in 30, 50 or even 100 years. Yet, i believe it to be worth it as we are still reaping the benefits as a society from such research dating from years gone by.
I'm genuinely curious about how this would happen with minimal to no government. Please enlighten me :)
write
preview
related posts
12 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 7 Mar
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/who-pays-for-science/
All scientific research can’t be subsidized by government. Private donors are important.
From the article: Boasting five Nobel Prize winners, Argentina credits a rich scientific tradition in part to both CONICET and its prestigious public universities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Argentine_Nobel_laureates
2 are peace prizes
The last winner was in 1984 for medicine.
Javier is doing the right thing. Researchers become complacent especially if they are government employees.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @anon 7 Mar
Low time preference investments require low time preference money. Private companies and individuals can't fund long-term high risk projects on a fiat standard because the money degrades so quickly. The government can fund it on a fiat standard, because it receives the spoils from debasing the money.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Voldemort 7 Mar
This one is tricky.
I don't view myself as a libertarian, but I do believe in a minimal government. Especially at the federal level.
On the one hand, I think there is a role for the government to fund science. On the other, I think they do a pretty bad job at it. They fund research that is at best pointless and at worst actually harmful to society. Also, it is easy to see what benefits we have reaped from government funded research, it is impossible to know what benefits we would have from privately funded research. Of course we have always had privately funded research but one could imagine a scenario where private firms did not engage in research because they wanted to free ride the government.
I don't really have an answer though.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 7 Mar
You raise a very important question about scientific funding from a liberal perspective. I imagine it is a controversial topic even among libertarians and I doubt there is a consensus. I imagine purists would say that scientific research should be entirely left to the private sector, while moderate liberals would argue that there should be some mechanism for funding it, such as tax breaks or vouchers. I personally believe that scientific research should be largely funded by the government because I see scientific research as an essential good, like education, health, and housing.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @clr 7 Mar
Stadler resorts to the extortion of citizens to finance his theoretical noncommercial projects. Why would a man with such a great mind tragically turn to the use of brute force to get the funding he desires?
The Robert Stadler Story: The Moral Fall of a Man Who Knew Better
reply