Tom Bethell, a great writer whose book on private property, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages, received much acclaim, has now given us the third installment in the Politically Incorrect Guide series: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. I’ve just read it, and it’s excellent.
A consistent theme throughout is the corrupting effect that government funding has had on science. Bethell writes in his introduction: “Take cancer research. In Chapter 11 I argue that for three decades the National Cancer Institute has pursued an erroneous theory of cancer’s origins — the gene-mutation theory. It’s not that the scientists involved — the great majority of cancer researchers — have adopted a theory for political reasons. They haven’t. If the argument here is correct, the underlying problem is created by government funding itself, which has obstructed the pursuit of alternative theories.
“A government strategy of funding conflicting theories would look hit-or-miss: not much better than trial and error. Plainly, most research money would be ‘wasted,’ and politicians don’t like that because they get the blame. Better to let the experts decide — form a consensus among themselves, form committees, and let them allocate the funds that way.
“In contrast, private-sector research is trial and error, by its nature. Capital is invested in a wide range of ideas and approaches, and maybe only one will pay off. In the private sector it’s called risk, not waste. The greatest scientific advances we have seen in recent decades, in the field of computer and information technology, did involve a great deal of risk and a great deal of ‘wasted’ investment. But there was also tremendous progress.
“Historically, the competition of theories has been the driving force behind scientific progress. Isolated individuals and private companies have been the most fruitful sources of this advance. And just as a competitive market system forces innovation into private enterprise, so the competition of theories drives science to investigate new approaches.
“When all research eggs are in one basket, it’s a different world. Competition may stagnate, or be eliminated entirely, if that is what the government decrees (as happened under Communism). When any single source of funding dominates, science will almost certainly become the handmaiden of politics. There is no recognition in our leading journals that this is a problem. Science magazine, for example, keeps a vigilant watch on government science spending, unhesitatingly equating ‘more’ with better.
“Government funding has also promoted the idea that a theory can be regarded as true if it enjoys enough support. There is certainly a consensus behind the gene mutation theory of cancer. Consensus discourages dissent, however. It is the enemy of science, just as it is the triumph of politics. A theory accepted by 99 percent of scientists may be wrong. Committees at the National Institutes of Health that decide which projects shall be funded are inevitably run by scientists who are at peace with the dominant theory. Changing the consensus on cancer will be an arduous task, like turning a supertanker with a broken rudder.”
Definitely worth adding to your list.
8:22 pm on November 13, 2005
