Government funding of research is based on the assumption that science fuels economic growth and that economic growth benefits all citizens. Continually generating new industries through technological discovery is key to a flourishing economy and thus to social welfare. As the aphorism goes, “a rising tide lifts all boats.”
This linear model of scientific outcomes was articulated by Vannevar Bush, the head of the US Office of Scientific Research and Development during the Second World War, in Science, The Endless Frontier, a 1945 report to President Truman proposing a science policy for the postwar era. Ever since, the linear model has been central to government involvement in science in Canada as well as the States.
But is it true? Does economic growth due to scientific advancement really benefit everyone? In his article Public Value Science, Arizona State University professor Barry Bozeman argues that in an already unequal society, science reinforces or even widens the economic gap. The rich will differentially benefit from the creation of new technologies, while the poor will be deeply affected by the destruction of industries.
When sectors of the economy based on new technologies are born, working-class people suffer job losses and displacement. In addition, they are unable to purchase many new products, such as educational accessories, security technologies, and medical devices. Simultaneously, the wealthy benefit: not only can they buy the products, but they are able to purchase stocks and profit directly.
Health and medicine may be considered the area of research most oriented towards public good. However, it is no shining example of “science for all.” Only 10 percent of funding goes toward research on illnesses that affect 90 percent of the world’s population, a phenomenon known as the 10/90 gap. Funding organizations do not always opt for research that will do more public good. Almost four times as much cancer research funding in Canada goes to novel therapeutics than to prevention and quality of life combined.
Current science policy fails to address the problem of economic disparity as it relates to technological innovation. Often, social policy is blamed for negative socioeconomic outcomes resulting from scientific research. In reality, job losses and lack of resources are welfare issues, and subpar medical aid is a public health problem. But the issue is too deep to be remedied down the line. We need to restructure how public funding for science is used.
In a field as competitive and grant-driven as academia, we cannot simply ask scientists to direct their research to public value ends. Though scientists ought to be aware of the socioeconomic implications of their research, they will respond primarily to financial incentives. Thus, the change must take place at the level of government allocation of funding.
One strategy may be to systematically evaluate the social impacts of research projects. In grant applications, short- and long-term impacts of the work must be promised, but these are often exaggerated and never followed up on. The establishment of an institute for “research on research” that checks if projects have reached their goals would hold scientists more accountable.
To further increase the chances of research ultimately benefitting the public, we should require a plan for technology transfer to be laid out in proposals. Research may have the potential for public value, but often industries do not scale up their research outcome because it promises limited profit. Technology transfer could be aided by universities partnering with start-ups or by establishing organizations dedicated to helping scientists plan and execute the transfer of their research.
Does this mean we should abandon basic research that has little foreseeable socioeconomic impact? Bozeman suggests that we create a separate institute for “science for curiosity” as distinguished from science with a socioeconomic impact. Offering a source of funding for research with no expectation of benefit will discourage scientists from making empty promises about social impact in grant applications.
There are many practical challenges associated with reorienting science toward lessening economic disparity. How will we decide what public values to strive for? We may imagine an ideal democratic procedure, try to engage the public directly, or focus on diversifying the economic background of scientists, but any attempt to answer such a question will be difficult. Next, how do we evaluate the social impacts of basic research? How much money should go to “science for curiosity” versus “science for economic benefit”?
Directing science towards public welfare will place political debate at the centre of science policy, and this will be a difficult process to navigate. Nevertheless, any effort to harness the profound power of scientific research toward creating a more equal society will be worthwhile.
The Second World War brought the power of technology to the world stage and kicked government-funded science into gear. With our current crisis again shining a spotlight on scientific research, now may be the time to restructure our funding institutions and usher in an era of science for economic equality.
