Separation of Science and State
This is the 6th essay in my introductory series. You can read the previous installments here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 & Part 5.
I found C.P. Snow’s writings while in college (1984 - 87) and accepted his idea that governments should fund and even direct scientific research. His experience moving between scientific and literary social groups mirrored my own which made me open to his narrative. The Cold War politics of the mid-1980’s seemed to support Snow’s premise about government funding. As I matured, I discovered that this idea is wrong. Further, I believe government involvement in research has contributed to the lack of trust in science today.
The unquestioned premise is that government should fund science. The argument being that basic research, vital to progress in industrial societies, is unprofitable, and therefore corporations would never pursue it. Neil deGrasse Tyson elaborates on this point in this video. His claim is that governments are necessary to define the costs, assess the risks and establish timeframes for advance research, especially in areas that are expensive.
It has just become ‘common sense’ to most people that government should fund and direct scientific research. A brief survey of the 19th and early 20th centuries, however, demonstrates that corporations have funded science in the past. Basic scientific research was a common pursuit of private citizens and companies during this period.
The theory of the atom was largely directed by individuals funded with private grants in the first three decades of the 20th century. Neils Bohr studied in England under a grant from the Carlsberg Foundation, a non-profit organization founded by J. C. Jacobson. He did his work at the Cavendish Laboratory, established with private donations from William Cavendish. This laboratory nurtured the research of 30 different Nobel laureates and other famous scientists like Ernest Rutherford, James Clerk Maxwell and J. J. Thompson. It should also be noted that Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the structure of DNA at this institution.
Bell Labs started in the late 19th century as the Western Electric Engineering Department, a private venture started by Alexander Graham Bell. In 1925, it was reformed into the Bell Telephone Laboratories. Ten Nobel Prizes and five Turing Awards have been awarded for work completed by scientists working for Bell Labs. Over half a dozen programming languages were developed at Bell Labs. Transistors and lasers were also invented at the institution.
The Wright brothers designed, built and flew the first powered airplane in 1903. They accomplished this feat on their own without government money. It should be noted that Samuel Langley was developing an airplane during this same period. His failed design was funded by the government.
John D. Rockefeller hired two promising young chemists, Herman Frasch and William Burton, who researched the chemical composition of oil and its waste products. Their fundamental scientific research led to the discovery of kerosene used to light homes before electricity, bitumen used in road construction and various lubricants industry relies on today. It should be noted that Rockefeller hired these two using his own money because the Board of Directors at Standard Oil refused to authorize the use of company funds.
I could go on. But hopefully I have made the point – government funding is not necessary for science to thrive. Today, private research funding has been pushed to the side by the enormous amount of money government pours into science. Government funding has distorted what used to be a privately funded endeavor.
There will still be some readers who think it can’t hurt for government to fund some science, right? I would have to say, yes, it can hurt. That is not the function of a proper government. Governments ought to set objective laws that do not infringe on personal freedoms. Unfortunately, governments tend to regulate areas that are not proper. This includes science. Any involvement by governments stifles free investigation required by science. If politicians and bureaucrats are allowed to fund science, there is a natural tendency to steer science in subtle, but often politically motivated, ways.
Government grants frequently direct a research subject in the phrasing used to request proposal. Climate change is a hot topic these days. The term is used by researchers and government agencies to win funding for all manner of science. That is why we see headlines reporting how climate change is causing everything from mental health issues to more intense wildfires to indoor air pollution. Funding proposals that include climate change have an advantage over those that explore natural causes of these phenomena.
Government agencies also tend to freeze development of technologies. Materials and technologies that have been known for decades often languish in obscurity because of regulation. Carbon fiber technology has been used in various products for decades. But only recently has this material been adopted by airplane manufacturers. The reason many cite for this delay is the certification process instituted by the FAA. The Department of Energy is responsible for certifying nuclear reactor design and the commissioning of power plants. It has been largely responsible for the 40 year gap in the commissioning of any new nuclear reactors in the US. It has also delayed the wide deployment of molten salt reactors – a technology that has been known for 65 years and thought to be safer than the current reactor designs.
The consequences of government involvement in science mentioned above are bad enough. But the tendency of government to expand its reach using science as justification has caused a backlash in recent years. The public’s perception of science has degraded, not because of the actual science, but its use in politics.
The underlying science on controversial subjects like climate change and COVID is typically good. The problem is that the public does not understand that individual studies typically have a narrow focus and the conclusions drawn from them are context specific or have a limited scope.
Politicians take advantage of the public’s scientific ignorance. They pull statistics and conclusions from peer reviewed papers without the proper context, calling it ‘The Science’. And the public is beginning to chafe under all the policy restrictions. They intuitively understand that these restrictions will diminish their livelihoods. They certainly blame the politicians, but also feel the need to discredit ‘The Science’ used to justify these policies.
This is why we are witnessing the tension and spread of misinformation these days. And it is all the result of government involvement in science.
One purpose of this Substack is to advocate for the separation of science and state. I choose to use the political chaos surrounding controversial scientific subjects as an opportunity to educate the general public about science as a profession, as a process and as a body of knowledge.