Should the government fund science research?

07/02/2008

A new book by Terence Kealey, a biochemist and vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, UK says that there is no need for government funding of pure research. He writes that free markets and competition lead to technological innovation and economic progress. The author states that patents are not necessary to drive research and development because companies will innovate to differentiate themselves in the market place. He cites a 2003 OECD report indicated that publicly funded research and development leads to less private research and therefore cuts economic growth.
"Sex, Science & Profits: how people evolved to make money"
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2008/kealey-book.html

This is a challenging viewpoint. Do you think that governments should fund basic research?

Previous topic

Discussion forum

Next topic

9/02/2008 13:37

xavier

Of course !

What does mean "basic" ?

Something fundamental that doesn't have any concrete benefit yet ? Something that can have a tremendous benefit, say, in 40 years ?

If I understood properly, the main objective of companies is to be able to show a decent quarter so shareholders and the stock exchange are happy. Somehow, I find it difficult to conciliate the these two time frames.

As for public bodies, the long term make much more sense, of course

home page/Discussion forum/