I’ve read enough SciFi that toyed with the good and bad sides of libertarian approaches to have thought this through numerous times and like the outcome.

See “The Unincorporated Man” as a recent example.

I’d make that trade in a heartbeat.

The DARPA work cited is a decent example of government’s sponsoring the high risk underlying research and leaving the exploitation to the profit motive. That is one basic feature of the US innovation system.

I suppose it is true, although minor in effect, that some government research attracts boo-birds, like the Senator Proxmire Golden Fleece awards for projects famously like the sex life of the tsetse fly. But most of that complaining is mere political posturing and we couldn’t find a preventive measure for sleeping sickness without first understanding how the vector operates. The same situation applies to a prevention of liver cancer in the presence of hemochromatosis.

We have to keep research in perspective. Research seeks to understand how nature works; development seeks to exploit that knowledge. Research by its nature cannot promise any specific results and is therefore avoided by profit-seeking entities. Before Pfizer can develop a pharmaceutical against a cancer, it must first understand how the cancer cell works. For that knowledge, it turns to federally sponsored research in biology funded mainly by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation where peer review governs the choice of the best research. Peer review was a core consideration in Bush’s 1945 exhortation for promoting and steering a national research program.

And it is true that some research is driven by political considerations, like the Army’s research in breast cancer. Again, such “political science” is minor as almost all research is funded competitively by the research agencies. I was there doing it as a minor cog in the great research funding machine. Proposals sometimes included some supporting letter from a Member of Congress, but I ignored such letters unless they added useful information about the proposed research. I don’t remember a single case where the member added anything useful for competitive evaluation.

On balance, the federal government has produced a wealth of knowledge that helps fuel the US innovation machine. Eliminating that sponsorship should be done with great caution for the effects of shutting off the flow of knowledge. Before shooting the golden goose, we should have a replacement strategy with some assurance of its working. Shooting the goose to avoid the cost of feeding it could be a grossly false economy.

I think you have underestimated the effect of private businesses on improving quality of life and overestimated the trustworthiness of government.

The government has a detrimental effect on science as a whole, not just medicine. Government funded science has the effect of creating politicized science and keeping the scientists begging and fighting for more funds. He who pays the piper chooses the tune.

There have been benefits to government science projects. For instance, we are arguing over a medium originally developed by DARPA. But it achieved usefulness because of private adoption. But for every internet there is a study about how studies waste money.

I might be convinced to have the government fund basic cancer research. But if that puts on a slippery “if we do that, we can do this” slope, then we would all be better off if it didn’t fund it. The amazing freedoms and economic growth from not being slaves to government would easily offset any funding role they have. One of the hundreds of thousands of billionaires created could fund itas their legacy. Somebody like Jon Huntsman (google it), only multiplied by thousands of instances.

Government in the way, where and how? The National Cancer Institute http://www.cancer.gov pours money into the science, $6B last year. I don’t know how much BigPharma puts into it, but their building blocks come from government funded research on the nature of the disease and the science of the human body. What complaint have you about government’s role in cancer research?

WOuld I fund cochlear implants? No. Cancer, maybe, but I doubt it would be needed in either case, and I think that research would be better because it would be focused on producing results not getting more research money from the government.

I believe that this very blog recently advocated a Manhattan project against cancer, an echo of the Nixon call for a “war on cancer.” We would all like the imagined results with the equally imaginary idea that we wouldn’t have to pay for it with public, taxpayer-supplied funds.

I would certainly find interesting an economic analysis that says that less government research would lead to a better US scientific system and a gain in US economic competitiveness. I have one such book by Englishman Terence Kealy. Can you point to any other credible argument backed by data, not just a generic belief that less government is better?