If we didn't have government grants, then no science would get done!
-- What about private research funding, or historically private developments like the lightbulb?
No, I meant basic research. Private companies don't invest in basic research as it is not profitable.
-- I see. There could be many reasons why you would say that. One, they do invest, you just don't notice. Second, they do, but your definition of basic research actually excludes most private funding. Third, they do, but not to the level you would wish. Fourth, they don't, and that's partly because the desire for funding is already met by the state. What do you think.
Well, I guess there are some private research grants, but most grants come from public sources. Clearly we need those public funding sources to continue. Even now, basic research isn't funded very well, even though it is very important for society.
-- Many things are important. The question is, how do you prioritise?
Why should we have to prioritise? The state wastes lots on war! Just divert the funds from there!
-- Sure, war is wasteful. Is that relevant, though? In the end, there will still be a limited budget, and priorities will always need to be made. Scarcity is a fundamental property of the universe. The question is who makes the decisions on how much to spend, and on what?
Well, we get grant committees to make the decisions!
-- Are you aware of the problems of central planning? No prices equals no proper accounting for scarcity. How do the grant committees prevent the money from being wasted?
Sure, but central plannings only becomes a problem if you try to plan everything. Anyway, there is no real alternative, so we have to make do with the best guesses of the committee.
-- Yet, do you agree that some amount is wasted? Resources are wasted on dead-end or overly esoteric projects, and don't go towards really useful things. You know, projects that could solve issues around human suffering in the here and now. For example, why is the hadron collider preferred over promising cancer research projects that could save people's lives? Or even, why no spend the money now on actually preventing, say, malaria with bed nets? Yes, it could be possible to fund all those things, but how do you really know if the resources are appropriately allocated? It's just guesswork, and that is true whether a committee decides, or individuals.
Well, it has to go somewhere, and expert committees have the best chance of prioritising, compared to just random non-experts. They know what they are doing.
-- But what is the thought process of the committee? Aren't they fallible?
Sure, but they are experts. Why rock the boat? Things don't seem to bad with this system.
-- We should take resource wastage seriously. If there are improvements to be made, then let's do them. Anyway, the committees luckily have competition, right? There are many committees, not only because there are many states, but also because there are many grant programs. There are also private foundations that come up with their own priorities. Why not make everything private? Why not rely on voluntary funding, and have many small private committees allocate the grants?
Well, private foundations will not have enough funds to give to the basic research projects I am interested in.
-- Wouldn't that suggest that those topics are less important in the eyes of others? Won't lack of funds in one research area mean that, actually, it is not that interesting or important? If it were, presumably more people would fund it, right? So, why would there be less funds in a private system?
Well, I presume the private funding agencies themselves just won't have that much money. Few people will donate to them.
-- Why would that be?
The general public doesn't care about basic science enough to donate enough to private funders, at least not to allow them to fund research at same level as what the state does now.
-- Are the general public stupid, then? Or just ignorant? Would it not be possible to convince them to donate more?
They are not necessarily stupid, just uninterested or uneducated in these particular topics. They don't understand, like I do, the importance of basic research. The benefits are too far off in the future. It is hard to convince people to fund things like the hadron collider.
-- If that is true, then why do they vote for politicians who promise not to cut the science budgets, or even to increase them? Why wouldn't the popularly-elected politicians cancel all funding tomorrow, if most of their constituents don't care?
Well, because there are still enough of us who do care. There will always be some pressure from scientists to keep up the current level of funding.
-- Could it also be that there is a certain prestige given to politicians who fund science, as well?
Yes, sure, it will look bad for them if they cut the budgets too much. People will accuse them of being anti-science or anti-intellectual.
-- Would that mean that scientist, as a vocal and politically influential minority, are a special interest group?
I suppose they are. Just like the oil interests, or farmers, or...
-- There are indeed many special interest groups. That is true. There is nothing wrong with groups having a shared interest, but why is it acceptable to give them public money? Isn't it generally bad for society if a minority interest group gets to spend money out of the government's budget? Take a different example. Lots of people like to go ten pin bowling. There is nothing wrong with that. Who do you think should pay for the lanes, though?
Well, the bowlers themselves of course!
-- Not the government? Shouldn't there be grants from some kind of "sports committee" that they can apply for? Why should science be different?
No, bowling is different. It is a past time like any other. The players can afford to pay for it themselves. Science is more essential, and it can be very expensive to have people work on it full time!
-- If it is essential, why do you think so few people in society agree with increased budgets?
They just don't understand the benefits like me. Both the voters, and the politicians.
-- All special interests think the same though, right?
Yes, I suppose they do.
-- You want to convince others of the importance of funding science, because you know all about its benefits. That's normal. You have an interest in the topic, so you are thinking about it more than others. The bowlers probably think their sport is really fun, for example, and they would like to convince others to play. However, they would understand that it is not everyone's top priority to spend all their money on bowling. You would not want to be forced to pay for their preferences, so why is it OK for you to do it to them?
Yes, but there are far worse things that my taxes go towards. A lot of money is wasted on war, for example. I don't like it, but I have to suck it up. We live in a society.
-- Though if you had it your way, then no money would be spent on war, right?
Yes, right away! War is such a waste, and that money would be far better spent on basic research.
-- The malaria net charity would spend it better than hadron collider research, though. At least, that's what the charity would argue. "All extra money should be diverted to bed nets!" is what they'd like.
I agree, they would like it. They are just one group though, and it is in their interest to get more funding. That doesn't mean they should get all my disposable income.
-- That's exactly the point. There are always interest groups, and they always think their project is important. The question is how to fund this practically infinite number of possible projects. Do we tax, then let special interest committees decide on grant allocations? They have no incentive not to spend their entire budget every year. Or, do we leave it up to private individuals to decide? Donations would be voluntary, and funders would have to compete amongst themselves to spend the money in line with the preferences of their backers.