Increasing funding for basic necessities

My son sent me an article from the November 19, 2013 issue of Science magazine, written by the past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), William Press. In “What’s So Special About Science (And How Much Should We Spend on It?)” Press writes about the challenges in justifying government funding for basic research in times of economic austerity.

It is a thoughtful piece that is applicable for Canada, and indeed, all countries to consider.

The author, a member of President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, notes that the US government allocates more than 100 times as much ($40B) for basic research as it does for the total of appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts ($150M) and National Endowment for Humanities ($170M):

It is evident that society is willing to pay much more for curiosity-driven research in science than for the analogous thought and beauty-driven practice of the arts and humanities. It is easy to guess the reason: the link, sometimes subtle but repeatedly established over time, between investment in basic research and macroeconomic growth. Discovery leads to technology and invention, which lead to new products, jobs, and industries.

Still, Press acknowledges that “A skeptical and stressed Congress is entitled to wonder whether scientists are the geese that lay golden eggs or just another group of pigs at the trough.” In today’s economy, he says that scientists need to articulate the case for continued investment more powerfully and in a more sophisticated way than in more prosperous times.

The author identifies the case for government (versus private sector) funding of basic research, indicating that economic returns are large, but not “appropriable.”

The nature of basic research is that its results flow to the rest of the world. Although basic research can be turned into applied research—into patents, products, and eventually economic growth—this may not necessarily occur in the laboratory where the work is originally done or even in the same country. So the appropriability of basic research is low. The investor generally does not get enough of the reward.

Basic research leading to scientific discovery is thus a public good. It will benefit all. But, because the private incentive to pay for basic research is therefore attenuated, the private sector as a matter of economic self-interest is likely to underinvest in it.

The author observes that those nations spending close to 3% of their GDP on R&D are the ones that compete most successfully. The United States spends at that level today. Israel is spending more than 4%. Canada is spending 2%.

It appears that Canada is going to need to up our game as we play in a knowledge-based global economy.