Western democracies have reached a critical impasse financially, with debt levels at their highest since World War II. At a time when countries are spending 6-12% of their budget just to pay interest on existing debt, it is incumbent to determine whether every dollar is being put to its best possible use.
We’d like to think our money is well-spent, but what about the money going to special-interest scientific-industrial causes, rather than for the good of the country’s citizens? A prime example is NASA, with its gargantuan $18 billion budget. The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) has a relatively paltry but still significant $300 million. What do we have to show for this money? Our country’s name on a hulk of metal up in space-far remote from the issues facing our world.That same money could have funded the entire education of 7000 engineers-greater than all the undergrads currently at Waterloo. Rather than being concentrated in satisfying the intellectual curiosity of a few of the scientific elite, the benefits could have gone to thousands of aspiring young professionals, each eager to make their mark on this world.
You could make the argument that this investment is still going to developing professionals, just at a different part of their careers. However, it is not clear that this investment would not happen without the government. A good example of this is Elon Musk’s (founder of PayPal) company SpaceX which has successfully launched commercial shuttles and satellites, proving conclusively that private investment is capable of providing even the most substantial of scientific undertakings. In a phenomenon known as ‘crowding out’, government investments can actually prevent innovation and the development of the best technologies. Rather than allowing the citizens and corporations of a country to decide how best to accomplish a given objective (such as putting satellites into space), the government picks winners, often choosing less efficient technologies and stifling innovation.
A good example of the government picking winners is investment in biofuels, specifically corn-based ethanol. In the interest of investing in future technologies, the American government has subsidised corn ethanol, which has inhibited the development of alternatives and encouraged farmers to convert foods crops en masse. These actions have spread havoc on food supplies nationally and abroad. The law of unintended consequences has resulted in government research funding actually detracting from the quality of life worldwide, inducing food shortages and raising food prices, which consequently reduce disposable incomes, especially among the poorest families across the globe.
So where should our tax dollars be spent? The perennial needs of education and healthcare are obvious choices, as are transportation infrastructure, poverty alleviation and investments in rehabilitation for criminals and at-risk youth. All have direct benefits to a great number of people who often have significant needs. Caring for the sick, uneducated and those in need are very natural roles for government. Essential services like roads and public transportation are of great benefit to all citizens and difficult for private industry to replace.
It is tempting to extol the “spin-off benefits” of investments in science and technology. People may point to technologies like ballpoint pens, parachutes or scratch-resistant lenses as inventions that came as indirect effects of space research. I’m not going to rebut every single invention as trivial because many are certainly useful and valuable. The point is that there is no reason, if sufficient demand exists, that the same inventions could not have come about through private industry at a lower cost and with greater competition-driven innovation. The argument that investing money without direct benefits creates serendipitous discoveries is fallacious: there is no reason to believe that research that is of direct benefit to society is any less likely to go wrong and make accidental discoveries than research that does not.
So where are the real spin-off benefits? Investment in roads and public transportation allow people to get to work and elsewhere quicker, making their day more efficient, adding to their net accomplishments and giving them more time to spend with their families, qualitatively enhancing their quality of life. Investment in healthcare means our citizens can live healthier and more productive lives: spending less time in hospitals and more time both enjoying their lives and contributing to our world. Investment in at-risk youth or adult criminals not only gives them new opportunities, but helps protect society from harmful activities they may otherwise partake in. Helping the poor can help them break cycles of poverty and contribute meaningfully to society.
Most importantly, investing in individuals’ education not only improves their lives, but raises the standard of living for all of us, as educated individuals can subsequently apply their knowledge for the betterment of others. These individuals can be employed by private industry satisfying the needs, wants and intellectual pursuits of consumers, or government investments in public goods such as health care, poverty alleviation and infrastructure. Rather than trying to guess where people can best serve society, government can ensure we have the best, most capable people, and allow them to serve society in the way public and private partners can best use their newfound skills.
Ultimately, what is the end goal of government programs and scientific progress in general? It should be the betterment of people’s lives, at home and abroad. Clearly investing in science and technology programs without thought to the societal implications is irresponsible at best and damaging at worst. Not only are the benefits unclear or negligible, but this profligacy robs our future from the investments we need today.
Leave a Reply