Incentives for Scary Research?
While chatting with some friends tonight, the topic of government studies of artificial sweeteners came up (”Well, of course it did,” you’re saying to yourself). A friend who works at the EPA mentioned some agency folks who had just finished a study apparently racking up more evidence that aspartame (in the form of diet soda in this study, it seems) does such things as cause cancer in lab rats and fails to actually help the rats lose weight as compared to a control group that was drinking regular soda (personally, all the rats I know are more health-conscious than that and tend to avoid soda altogether–something about phosphoric acid).
I asked my friend if he had seen many government-funded studies that came up with good news in their results. You see, it occurs to me that there is a disturbing incentive at work here that makes all government-funded science suspect by default. The money comes either from elected officials directly or from government bureaucracies whose existence and budgets depend on the elected officials.
Now, we know that elected officials (with a very, very few exceptions) depend for their jobs and fame on scaring voters about particular issues and then riding in like the cavalry to solve the terrible problems with new legislation. Are these politicians likely to send money toward scientists whose research finds that, say, aspartame is perfectly safe? Certainly not. Do the scientists know this? Of course. Are there ethical scientists who get the government funding and then proceed to brazenly stick it to their masters by following the science and coming out with results that are not scary? I’m sure there are. But I’ll bet not many of them get repeat business from Uncle Sam (and if they work directly for a government agency, they may not keep their job much longer).
Of course, there’s also a dynamic involved that doesn’t necessarily involve scaring voters into accepting new legislation. Politicians will often also fund research that is popular among the masses, regardless of its actual value. For instance, you see politicians today jumping on whatever the latest ‘green’ technology is that is trendy among the environmental groups (ever notice how easy it is for people to push something when they can use government to force everyone else to help them pay for it?).
I’ve personally seen a lot of government physics research (including some I worked on myself in my pre-libertarian days) that seemed to be driven by socially popular environmental agendas (not to mention plenty of space craft research driven by military-related fear mongering).
Basically, what it comes down to is that research that is likely to lead to an expansion of government power or increased fame and personal power for politicians is much more likely to be funded by your tax dollars than research that isn’t.
Or even more briefly: Government funding of scientific research tends to bias the results in favor of expanded government.
Maybe something to keep in mind when weighing the results of government research.
Am I right? Am I wrong? Have I misread the incentives? Weigh in with your comments, and let me know what you think!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Comments
Comment from Kelly
Time: January 11, 2008, 3:27 pm
Ps. my understanding is the the phosphoric acid is only in the coca cola recipe…
Comment from Darren
Time: January 12, 2008, 12:56 am
When you say you’ve only seen “scientific incentives” in industry, what exactly do you mean? Some kind of negative incentive? I imagine there are various incentives influencing science in private businesses, but the overriding incentive in the private sector is profit, which you only get if you provide something of value to consumers. The overriding incentive in government-funded research is getting more money from government, which of course leads to a preponderance of research that the government thinks will result in benefits for itself, which tends to lead to an expansion of government and certainly no guarantee of anything of value to consumers (or ’society’ as some like to say).
Regarding phosphoric acid, it’s in most sodas (at least the dark ones). Just checked my Dr. Pepper and Pepsi at home and they’ve both got it. My original remark was just a smart-ass comment, but I have read some stuff about phosphoric acid forming some sort of solid deposits in the human body that increases general inflammation, which causes all sorts of health problems.
Comment from Kelly
Time: January 12, 2008, 12:49 pm
So the only monetary incentive I received while in industry were bonus tied to meeting certain milestones in clinical trials/drug development. The only incentives that I have seen/experienced in government is linked to publications and being associated with particular people. I think if you have good results that further a project along - no matter where you are - academia, industry, government - you should have the means to further that research.
The government has decided that some projects are of national interest and thus invests in basic research in those fields. If a lab does not produce results, it does not have continued funding and is either eliminated or redirected. I have seen this. In the labs that I have worked in RI and with you in TN, I did not see wasteful spending at all - actually, the opposite. They were probably the most frugal places I have worked (with the exception of the situation I have been in where we had no money so therefore no spending).
I know how you feel about the feds and their supporting research, so I think I’ll just leave it at this.
Oh, and since I really don’t want to leave another comment in the other blog about the privately-funded research, I’ll just make some quick comments here to save mousing-time since I’m not “nap-time”. Fine, you think his research is worthy of doing. Fine, you think people can throw away their own money to this research. Whatever. He’s going to have a hard time disseminating his results to the physics community since 1) those are the same people who turned down his grants in the first place and 2) will see that the work was funded by “alternative means.” I have talked about this approach with various professors in my department, and it’s viewed very negatively. So let’s say he gets some interesting data - dollars to donuts, the people who invested in this research aren’t going to understand it and again - if a scientist goes directly to major media for dissemination, it looks bad again because it’s 1) not peer-reviewed and 2) so dumbed-down at that point that the underlying problem/solution/observations are totally lost or glossed over.
Comment from Darren
Time: January 13, 2008, 11:51 am
I posted a response to the second part back under the
Private Donors Fund Really Friggin’ Cool Research entry.
Comment from Kelly
Time: January 11, 2008, 3:25 pm
Okay, I guess I missed this blog when you posted it early. The ONLY place I have seen scientific incentives (other than the cool paper in the really cool journal) is industry. I have worked in a federal and state funded labs with no perks other than a line on my CV and a great experience. Now - I was not in a leadership position, by any means. I did talk to someone in SC who 1) does work in a federal lab and 2) made a name for himself in the local media because of some comments that he made. BUT they were against the popular thought in the area. I think when people have leadership positions in government they should be more careful with what they say -as it could be construed as a government opinion vs personal. But in my experience, you never want that kind of exposure.