For the studies mentioned, how do you decide what leads to economic growth and what doesn't?<p>Take Lasers for example. The first Laser was made at Bell Labs, a commercial research lab. It would not have been possible without the maser that came before it in academia, or the work done by Einstein, also in academia. Lasers have had an immense economic impact, but do we credit them to academic or commercial research?<p>The answer is <i>both</i>.<p>Academic research is less frequently the final link in the long chain to profits than commercial research is. This is only natural since commercial research labs are motivated to invent products that will make money while academics can afford to take a longer view.<p>Why else might nations that spend a lot on fundamental science benefit? A skilled work-force. Scientists may publish how their experiments work in broad strokes, but the nitty gritty details are often something that can only be learned by working in a lab. If your country has a lot of labs, you have a workforce that commercial enterprise can draw upon to bring products to market based on research. A country can always lure immigrants, but having a home-field advantage is more cost effective.
I like "number theory" as a favorite example of practical reasons to fund seemingly impractical and useless academic research. A quote from Hardy (who I think was a number theorist, but could be misremembering) that I like is:<p>"I have never done anything 'useful'. No discovery of mine has made, or is likely to make, directly or indirectly, for good or ill, the least difference to the amenity of the world... Judged by all practical standards, the value of my mathematical life is nil; and outside mathematics it is trivial anyhow. I have just one chance of escaping a verdict of complete triviality, that I may be judged to have created something worth creating. And that I have created something is undeniable: the question is about its value."<p>And I can't find a quote, but I think I remember reading that he viewed his mathematical research as consistent with his pacifism, because nothing he developed could be used for military purposes.<p>Of course, now that we have computers...<p>But, given the different channels that research can become commercially viable, and given the long and uncertain time lags before new developments in research show up in GDP, a statistical analysis based on aggregate data is going to be absurdly difficult. And there are other reasons to expect that private companies will underspend (from a societal-benefit point of view) on research that has positive spillovers/externalities (really quickly: they're only going to want to spend to the extent that they directly benefit. If there are benefits that they can't profit from, as a society we'd want them to pay for the research anyway, but they'd be crazy to). So funding as much research as possible seems like a decent approach.<p>Incidentally, this is the first time I've seen someone claim that the US or Canada governments have massive research expenditures. Does anyone have a link for good numbers?
I do not believe that the U.S. government should fund translational research. I firmly believe that private enterprise will be able to efficiently make immediate use of any important scientific breakthroughs or discoveries. Instead, I believe that the government should pore funding into basic science research.<p>I completely disagree with the Author's implicit assertion that the U.S. government should spend less money funding scientific research. Private industry did not discover the importance of DNA, nor was it responsible for determining the chemical structure of this nucleic acid. Many fundamental discoveries would never have occurred in private industry simply because private industry cannot afford to heavily fund basic science.<p>The value of basic science is not felt within a decade or two. It takes a lifetime to appreciate.
It seems author goes from presupposition that economic growth is something inherently good or better than pursuit and dissemination of knowledge. Knowledge itself is valuable for society. If you don't agree, I don't want to know you.<p>Private companies don't fund fundamental/basic research, unless we have semi-monopolistic situation like with AT&T Bell Labs before breakup, and Microsoft Research today. If you're in highly competitive market, you simply can't fund things which don't improve your bottom line in foreseeable future.<p>Academic institutions provide highly trained employees for industry, without funding of academic research, quality of teaching will decrease significantly. Even if there is a problem in finding correlation between funding of public research and economic growth (which I find highly dubious, it goes against intuition and lots of examples) it definitely helps humanity as a whole, because knowledge is not locked up in borders. Although people who go with commercialization of an invention they've come up with while in academia, most commonly do it in their home country.
From what I've heard, those regressions aren't totally valid. It can simply be that poor countries grow faster (leapfrogging on the research of rich countries), but don't fund a lot of public R&D.<p>Once the regression hits a dead end (as it doesn't distinguish the causal factors), we jump straight to anecdotes - the Industrial Revolution, and the USA. Both of these are probably outliers.
It's possible that academic research causes economic growth, but that it doesn't do so on a country by country basis. A significant proportion of people trained in American research universities are not Americans. Many of these people probably return to their home country where they use their knowledge in industry. Furthermore, anyone who picks up your scientific paper can go ahead and implement what's in it regardless of where they are.<p>It may be that the we should fund scientific research because it benefits everyone rather than because it gives us an advantage over other nations.
It's very important to remember that government research money is taken from the citizens, who otherwise would allocate it in accordance with their preferences.<p>Taxes in the US are actually very high, plus the government takes a lot of money via inflation of the money supply.<p>It seems likely to me that government-funded research is a "local maximum."<p>If we were to massively shift the backbone of the economy from consumption to production (i.e., letting people and companies keep more of their money), we would certainly see much more private research.<p>In fact, we could potentially have a "research economy," if the intellectual property issues were sorted out. In this system, research institutes would take over a lot of functionality from academic departments (including training new researchers). Such an institute my employ tenured academicians who make lower, fixed wages (as with current academicians) but are free to do basic research, plus applied people try to market the results and are paid competitively (as with current industry people).<p>There is also a high level of regulatory capture in most industries that punishes any attempt to transition research results into a marketable product.
Economic growth encompasses <i>every single thing in the world</i> and has no single defining factor as the "cause."<p>Yes, academic research causes economic growth. So does eating and sleeping. Everything on the planet affects trade.
I can't agree with this article. It is very thoughtful, and looks very thoroughly to verify (or refute) a very specific thesis. However, it is manifestly causal-ly false to assert that pure scientific advances do not affect the real economy. Where would we be, economically, without silicon chips and laser beams? In a <i>very different place</i>.
I looked up the Author's published manuscripts to see what his background is in research. It appears that his expertise lies outside that of physics, chemistry, or biology but is instead in algorithm design(??) and data analysis(??).<p>I wonder if the programming community relies on academia as much as for example the medical industry or the aeronautical industry.
Remember that Google began with academic research in mining data from the web. Google created billions of dollars of value and thousands of jobs around the globe. That certainly contributed to economic growth.
This is weirdly the exception to the HN rule - if a title is a question the answer is no. In this case it's a full-on, dumb-as-shit hell yes. Describe the world that did not have the useless work of that weird academic Isaac Newton - I mean he never even taught students except three times. Talk about failing to contribute.<p>I must stop winding up my sarcasm chip - just unbelievably stupid article.