I totally agree with your point-of-view… but that would imply autonomous budgets for science… in the end it is the supplier of capital that is often in the lead, determining the science-agenda? Or isn’t that true? What is the role of government here, are they supportive to ‘free science’?

I think, after attending today’s discussion, one of the most crusial questions was: doing science versus doing business. Science or innovation can only be practiced with enough founding. It is very expensive and results can not be foreseen, it is a risky money consuming world. Who is willing to take the risks and to who are its results available and in what form?

Science can be done by open organizations like universities or by closed organizations like companies. In open organization results and underlying findings are shared, they are available for anybody, results can be verified and corrected by external parties or individuals, results are published in journals and are financed with mostly public money.

In a closed environments, like companies, its end results are communicated through the media or press conferences, underlying findings are closed and thus not shared outside the company, is mostly privately funded, and maybe most importantly: cannot be verified, corrected or extended. BUT its commercial exploitation is the risk and effort of the company. To some extend it seems like a bonus, a application of science. Like the cell phone example Jorgen mentioned. Its underlying quantum principles are publicly available, the application to the cell-phone is for businesses.

Both environments have its advantages and can co-exist to some extend. But what if a commercial finding is done that affects us all. What if a company invents a crucial cure for a disease, DNA manipulation of fish and rice, and spare body parts…. oh wait, that is already being done! The company now has the right to exploit its findings as it sees fit and is the only party who can use its commercially protected findings. The company now offers you a service contract to which you are stuck to for the rest of your life. It gives you a new heart or kidney along with a life-time service contract… Science in a closed environments… it brings great opportunities, but also great threats.

The third party, other than open and closed environments, is the government. And to who is it giving foundlings. A growing vision among governments seems to be the approach of seeing the country as an enterprise: The realization of short term goals in a business-like approach. What is commercially exploitable seems to deserve special attention. Luckily there are counter forces, but that what was previously an unthinkable option, is now being considered and increasingly approved. Today the government itself, with its competing parties proclaiming to have the best solution and approach, is in danger of becoming a bit of an short-term focussed enterprise itself.

I found today’s discussion mind bulbing and am still trying to unravel its dynamics. I am very curious for further input and discussion…

I don’t know if FREE is the issue here. It think that science can benefit from having a very strict set of conditions under which it needs to perform… maybe that even increases its quality… The promise to go to the moon wasn’t an invitation it was an order, a mission to bring a great country back on its feet. So freedom of science isn’t maybe the trigger. I’m more worried about the selection of studies, topics etc etc… I mean, many breakthroughs are a collection of many small, almost insignificant by itself, contributions. If we only want the instant commercially usable research or if we only grant a subsidy to those studies with a clear contribution we will slow down progress. Many great inventions are a fascinating cocktail of pure passion, a good environment, a big problem to solve and people who are willing to explore the uncharted territories, to think the other way. So the question is how to create a model for the allocation of funds to grant budgets.
Meanwhile I would like to comment that capital can be very restrictive, but so can science with all its rules, the rituals, culture… we have interviewed a number of people who felt the scientific sphere as a hurdle to being truly creative and innovative. So we are back to one of our core questions: How can we stimulate (applied) creativity?

i think we are addressing a fundamental right here. it is not an individual right but a collective right. the right that the collective strives to understand our world better. with understand i mean an impartial understanding. not measured in commercial applicability.

‘understanding the world’ is what science (not research) is about. i don’t believe in individual impartiality. everyone has something to gain somewhere. it might be a raise, or the praise of your idol, or the love of your friends. but it is important that the process of ‘understanding the world’ is impartial, or at least without bias. because impartiality makes it easier to shift your perspective, to create new paradigms. is the scientific community, still largely driven by the universities, such an impartial system?

i think it is, at least in europe, still reasonably impartial. (to make it really impartial we (we as in society) should make it a constitutional right to dedicate a fixed proportion of our wealth to science.) but everywhere the hand of liberalism can be witnessed, also in science. chairs are sponsored, campuses are built, etc. if you sell part of yourself you have to answer to the buyer eventually.

the buyer is mostly a capitalistic entity. (note that in the arts private funds are a major part in sponsoring.) and here is where the tension is introduced. a society institution answers to society, and the charter set overlooked by a body representing society. in science this is long term or short term, depending on the goals set. in a corporation it is shareholder value. a short term measurement. usually each year someone has to answer the question “what did you earn us this year”. and that is not the best question measuring increasing understanding of the world.

so, i totally agree with your observation. i don’t think value for society can be measured by economic principles only. perhaps we discover something where ‘economy’ is not even interesting anymore. (difficult to envision, but that is these sorts of thought experiments is what we should learn from.) and the best way to finance is to make it a fundamental (even constitutional) right. the scientific community operates like any other, where money is good enough and everything is about status and stature. overlooked by government measuring education and scientific advance. of course people will be ‘bought’ by commercial ventures but they will have to exchange freedom for money.

one last consideration about science and research. the darpa is heralded as the driver of one of the greatest periods of scientific advancement ever. but many of the fundamental science had already been done before. if we see darpa as applied science (perhaps research) it will open up our thinking about science. of course science can be directed and/or used for specific purposes. relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. are not darpa theories. they have been developed outside of darpa. but darpa has focussed its effort in applying these fundamental theories. and has done it very well, i think. on the shoulder of giants….