[mcv]

But this "capitalist science" has already existed for ages, hasn't it? Plenty of companies do science, monopolize the results through patents, and exploit them for private profit. That's capitalist science.

> The economic structure of basic science is currently socialist, funded by the public at large through taxes for the benefit of the public at large.

Yes, but increasingly less so. The public may fund it, but too much of the results get copyrighted by Elsevier and patented by other parties.

> Capitalist science will better align the incentives of scientists with taxpayer interests,

No it won't. It will align the incentives of scientists with the interests of corporations.

> channel more money into basic science, lower your taxes, and generally improve the quality of your life.

Nice talk. I think you're trying to sell me something, but I'm not buying it.

[ArbitraryLimits]

>> The economic structure of basic science is currently socialist,

> Yes, but increasingly less so.

IMO opinion the real problem isn't that basic science is becoming less publicly available as much as it's becoming less basic, and really less science also.

If "capitalist science" meaning holding scientists to the same production quotas that Frederick Taylor gave steel workers, then above and beyond the problems seen with steel workers, there's the additional problem that bad science drives out good since it's easier to produce.

[wes-exp]

The public may fund it, but too much of the results get copyrighted by Elsevier and patented by other parties.

Though it is lamentable that publicly funded research papers are often encumbered by a fee for access, the general knowledge contained within is still free for the public benefit.

Furthermore, the content within most papers is not patented or even patentable.

His fundamental assessment is still true: publicly funded science is currently a socialist enterprise.