Whenever there is any kind of financial problem, or people just don’t like where they see their tax dollars going to, we get a question of funding. Which groups deserve funding and which do not? Which projects will benefit society and which will not? Which projects are doomed to failure and which will hit that necessary breakthrough tomorrow, as long as they still have that funding?
In all of these questions the problem comes down to the fact that we cannot predict the future. If we could predict that an invention was going to fail horribly and never become a commercial success then the money would never have been invested in the first place. On the flip side, there are many projects that could have had the potential to change the world, but were shut down prematurely. It is for this reason that funding research and innovation cannot be limited to projects with clearly defined objectives and benefits: investments must continue to go towards projects even if they have no direct benefit to society.
One of the most controversial issues is definitely military funding, which is a huge business in the United States especially. When the pursuit of peace seems to require having the biggest weapon, it is easy to understand why people are against putting so much government funding towards weapons and other military equipment. But what are the benefits? Obviously, GPS is a classic example: technology developed originally for military use then adapted for civilians. Some may argue that GPS technology could have been developed without the military, but I think it would have taken a lot longer and cost a huge amount more. Which idea is going to get the necessary funding – Hi, I want to launch a series of satellites into geosynchronous orbit so that I can get directions to the movie store instead of looking at the map in my glove box. Or – Hello, we need money to launch satellites into geosynchronous orbit in order to accurately track military vehicles and personnel while in a battlefield situation. I think it is obvious which one gets the money. Down the road we still get the annoying voice in the car telling us we missed the turn – but the company didn’t go bankrupt launching the first satellite.
Many will argue that money would be better spent on medical research, focused on finding specific cures rather than counting on accidental discoveries. But those accidental discoveries are what created many of the medicines we count on so much, and without happenstance circumstances, or funding for unrelated projects, they would never have been discovered. Penicillin is a common example, as it was discovered by Sir Alexandre Fleming, who was testing bacteria on petri dishes. Leaving without cleaning off the trays, Fleming returned to find that a mold had grown on some of the dishes so he threw them out. Upon closer inspection Fleming noticed that the mold had killed the bacteria he was studying – voila, the discovery of one of the most important medicinal products in history.
NASA is famous for the technological advancements that they have developed for space exploration, but they have also teamed up with private companies to adapt technology for civilian use. When astronauts needed to collect rock and soil samples from the moon, using an extension cord from the space station wasn’t exactly a viable option. NASA worked with Black & Decker, which had recently developed preliminary battery operated drills, to optimize the technology for use in the space program, and we have obviously benefitted from that crossing of federal programs with private corporations.
It is very difficult to sit down and decide you are going to solve the meaning of life – 42 – or something more simple like world hunger. So it is crazy to propose limiting funding to projects with direct benefits to society-what is a direct benefit and what will eventually be recognized as a mistake? Pesticides are a great example of products that had great benefits for civilian use, especially in agriculture. Then people realized the contaminating nature of these products and the accumulating effects throughout the environment.
Innovation is a process of trial and error, success and defeat, which may ultimately lead to a great discovery that will change the course of humanity forever, or it could be something that gets swept under the carpet. Either way, it is impossible to categorize any project when it is proposed and people are seeking financial aid, when it is in the middle of development, or when it has been finished and is in use for its ‘designated’ purpose. Everything is in a state of flux, constantly being replaced or recombined with other ideas for create the next big invention. To stifle that process by limiting funding can only damage society in the long run – funding should be invested where a project merits it, not for its intended purpose alone.
Leave a Reply