|
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: "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." 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. Of course, now that we have computers... 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. 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? |