State-subsidized scientific research has evolved from a controversial new idea into a sacred-cow policy. One of its few diehard fans is British biochemist Terence Kealey, who argues in his new book, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research, that state support of science is stagnating and possibly even debilitating a healthy economy.
Kealey theorizes that the level at which a society underwrites science should be a function of its prosperity; if state subsidies are not available, private money will make up the difference.
His argument, though persuasive, could be stronger. For instance, Kealey barely considers the cost, inherent in state support, of forcing science into a single model - incremental, unambitious, university science. While that homogeneity is essential for funding, it strips science of the cultural richness that would come with a multiplicity of monetary sources.
Kealey's book hits the sacred cow dead-on. Too bad the blow isn't fatal.
This article originally appeared in the August issue of Wired magazine.
