USA Today: Are campuses becoming battlegrounds? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 23, 2006

RE: USA Today: Are campuses becoming battlegrounds?

Date: Mar 23, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

Scientist wrote: Basic research requires a search for knowledge for the sake of knowledge. This is contrary to capitalistic principles.

Scientist, I would love to know from what source(s) (other than you) that supports the axiom that the pursuit of basic research is contrary to capitalistic principles. Capitalistic economies far outperform less capitalistic economies in the production of basic research. You need look no further than the number of Nobel prizes awarded to Americans in basic research compared on a per capita basis than to any other country in the world. Under the capitalistic principles I am familiar with, all knowledge has value, just some is more valuable than others.

Coast Resident, I may not have made my statement clear. I wasn't speaking of "economic systems" used by various countries. I agree the richer capitalistic societies produce more research. By "Basic Research" I mean research at the forefront of our knowledge so that the outcome of the research can't be predicted. Therefore the "value" of the research can't be determined if your value system is based on "cost vs. profit" which is fundamental to any capitalistic system. To do this research the system must value "knowledge for the sake of knowledge".

You say, "Under the capitalistic principles I am familiar with, all knowledge has value, just some is more valuable than others." I agree. But if it is impossible to determine the value of a research program until decades or longer after the knowledge is obtained, how can you proceed under a capitalistic system. Earlier I gave the example of basic research leading to the invention of the LASER.

I realize that since here in the U.S. people are used to evaluating using the capitalistic system, so even basic science research has to "make up stories of how the research may lead to useful knowledge" in order to get funded. This is not part of the scientific method and is a danger to basic science funding.

I hope I didn't misunderstand your point.

Date: Mar 23, 2006

I forgot to add that researchers are less likely to take changes and risk failure by doing fundamental research. It's safer to work on problems where the research out come is more predictable, but less vaulable or world changing.

Date: Mar 23, 2006

Scientist wrote:

Coast Resident, I may not have made my statement clear. I wasn't speaking of "economic systems" used by various countries. I agree the richer capitalistic societies produce more research. By "Basic Research" I mean research at the forefront of our knowledge so that the outcome of the research can't be predicted. Therefore the "value" of the research can't be determined if your value system is based on "cost vs. profit" which is fundamental to any capitalistic system. To do this research the system must value "knowledge for the sake of knowledge".

Scientist, one of the most fundamental principles to any capitalistic system is entrepreneurship and the entrepreneur (the RISK taker). The undertaking of your "Basic Research" where the outcome can not be predicted is a "risk factor." Researchers undertake and companies and governments invest in "Basic Research" with the HOPE it will yield something of value. For the researcher the value may be in the form of prestige among his peers (which often translate to a better salary perhaps at a more prestigious university) and for industry and government it is some new application from the "Basic Research" as in the LASER from your example. The company/government that funded the basic research may or may not reap the benefits of the later developed application. This is again another part of the RISK factor. This risk taking is fundamental to the capitalist system and is why the more capitalistic countries excel in producing basic research compared to other economic systems.

Date: Mar 23, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

Scientist wrote: Coast Resident, I may not have made my statement clear. I wasn't speaking of "economic systems" used by various countries. I agree the richer capitalistic societies produce more research. By "Basic Research" I mean research at the forefront of our knowledge so that the outcome of the research can't be predicted. Therefore the "value" of the research can't be determined if your value system is based on "cost vs. profit" which is fundamental to any capitalistic system. To do this research the system must value "knowledge for the sake of knowledge". Scientist, one of the most fundamental principles to any capitalistic system is entrepreneurship and the entrepreneur (the RISK taker). The undertaking of your "Basic Research" where the outcome can not be predicted is a "risk factor." Researchers undertake and companies and governments invest in "Basic Research" with the HOPE it will yield something of value. For the researcher the value may be in the form of prestige among his peers (which often translate to a better salary perhaps at a more prestigious university) and for industry and government it is some new application from the "Basic Research" as in the LASER from your example. The company/government that funded the basic research may or may not reap the benefits of the later developed application. This is again another part of the RISK factor. This risk taking is fundamental to the capitalist system and is why the more capitalistic countries excel in producing basic research compared to other economic systems.

Again, I can't disagree with what you say here. But again, I think we are talking of different things. You refer to governments while I'm discussing the "capitalistic principles" at the university level. Right now the emphasis on "economic development" at the university and the acquisition of grant money to help fund the university establishes a "value system" which, in my opinion, undervalues basic or fundamental research. In the past, it was the universities where the high risk basic research was done because only a few industries (Bell labs) could afford the risk. Now it is being devalued in favor of engineering or applied research only because of the application of "capitalistic principles" to scientific research.

That is all I'm saying. Researchers in basic or fundamental areas are considered to be wasting resources because they can't show how their work will benefit USM and Hattiesburg. While "training grants" and similar "contractual service" activities are held up for praise and reward because they are said to produce a profit now. The benefit to society from these activities, in my opinion, is minimal in the long run compared to the discoveries universities used to produce.

I have enjoyed this discussion and appreciate your contributions to my understanding.

Date: Mar 23, 2006

Scientist wrote:

Again, I can't disagree with what you say here. But again, I think we are talking of different things. You refer to governments while I'm discussing the "capitalistic principles" at the university level. Right now the emphasis on "economic development" at the university and the acquisition of grant money to help fund the university establishes a "value system" which, in my opinion, undervalues basic or fundamental research. In the past, it was the universities where the high risk basic research was done because only a few industries (Bell labs) could afford the risk. Now it is being devalued in favor of engineering or applied research only because of the application of "capitalistic principles" to scientific research.

Scientist, I do not disagree with your statement concerning that there has been an increase in emphasis at USM (and most universities around the country) on economic development related to R&D. With regard to the idea that in the "past" the universities did more basic research and now it is being devalued in favor of engineering of applied research, I respectfully disagree and refer to you as one study on this: Trend and Patterns in R&D expenditures in the US http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/93/23/12658

I do not think one can point to USM and say that in its past it did more in basic research, total dollars adjusted for inflation, than today. As a percent of total R&D funding basic research has likely declined as it has at most other universities. This is due to the simple fact that for each "basic research" discovery (X) there is (X+Y) number of applications. Thus applied research will always grow at a faster rate than basic research because it basic research result yields on average a larger number of applied research opportunities which yield additional applied research opportunities. That in our technology driven age we see applied research growing faster than basic research is to be expected, but note, basic research funding continues to grow just not as fast as applied research. It is thus to be expected that the pursuit of applied research dollars is also likely to grow faster than basic research.

Add to this that for universities like USM (not a core basic research university like MIT, Stanford, etc.) the best way to pursue growth in R&D funding is through applied research. The economic benefits of applied research funding, which are with out doubt more short term and local in nature when compared to those of basic research, lead to universities waving the economic development banner as they compete for applied research funding and the resources to better compete for these funds. Thus university-industry partnerships grow. If I were to look at USM and say it should go after more basic research funding (government funding which has not grown as fast as industry funding over the past two decades) I would be likely to say its best chances were likely in the material sciences (polymers) but I think few at USM would cheer for this while Thames sits in the Dome.

I to have enjoyed our exchange and will end it here in favor of other discussions related more to USM’s future in the post Thames era to come.

Date: Mar 24, 2006

I'd like to thank Coast Resident and Scientist for their well reasoned arguments, presented in a civil, respectful manner without insults or name calling. For me this was a refreshing and informative exchange, something that's been in short supply here of late.