What do you think?
Rate this book
The Economic Laws of Scientific Research
'Dr Kealey's brave, entertaining and learned book makes a powerful case for his unpopular views. It must give pause to any open-minded student of science policy.' - R.C.O. Matthews 'Not since J.D. Bernal has a practising British scientist challenged conventional arguments about the funding of science so originally, and so powerfully.' - David Edgerton, Imperial College Does government funding of science promote economic and cultural growth? This burning question has come to dominate political and academic thought. The evidence seems Japan flourishes economically neglecting science while the USSR and India who actively promoted government-funded science have declined. The purpose of this book is to assess the myth that government-funded science works economically. Supported by historical argument and international contemporary comparison, Terence Kealey argues that the free market approach rather that of state funding has proved by far the most successful in stimulating science and innovation.
394 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1995
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 3, 2015
An interesting, provocative, and in-depth look at how scientific research is funded and how technology is advanced. This book was referenced in Antifragile. I thoroughly enjoyed the author's writing style. The history of technology and technology funding from the beginning of recorded history into the twentieth century is a fascinating read. The author's ambitions are not narrowly reserved for just the English speaking world. His is a view that encompasses scientific research whenever and wherever it has occurred. He makes strong arguments, he supports his arguments with evidence, and explores both sides of the argument. The first part of the book is an excellent history of technology development. The discussion then turns to the economic foundations of research and finishes with the philosophical implications of the funding of research.
During most of the book I kept thinking that it would have been wonderful if in graduate school I had been exposed to this book and the economic laws of research. I even thought of writing my graduate advisor and recommending this book to his current students. If you are pursuing a professional path that will involve research it would be worth your while to understand the topics discussed in this book. About two-thirds of the way through I began to change my mind--perhaps it wouldn't be such a good idea to pass this title into academia. Would the author's message fall on deaf ears? Certainly the author will have his detractors. A key argument is that in a laissez faire approach to funding research, the research that is funded will have a greater impact than research that is funded in a dirigiste manner. This is a dangerous idea and it has been challenged for many, many years. If you have experienced industrial research in a commercial setting, or been exposed to venture capital funding of technology then the author's arguments will come across as plain and well founded. If you have been the beneficiary of government funding for your research you will find many things that will challenge your world view. On page 331 the author describes how his arguments have been received by scientists, academics, artists, and intellectuals: "Every practising scientist to whom I have suggested that [a laissez faire approach to funding would result in more voluntary financial support of science] has stared back at me as if I were dangerous, mad and possibly rabid; i.e. every practising scientist I have encountered has believed, Rousseau-like, that he, almost uniquely, possesses a morally sublime view of society's need for pure science, but that the mass of people are blind to their responsibilities, and have to be dragooned by the State into funding research." Certainly, as your current research contract comes to an end and funding is not immediately on the horizon it is not a stretch to take the view of Rousseau. There are some very honest and blunt criticisms leveled against the status quo of research funding.
Published in 1996, there were a few places in the text that I would have liked to see more current figures and examples--though the arguments hold up very well. His warnings on government efforts to make state funded academic science more industrially relevant ring true. Similarly, he projects the impact of what happens when funding of research is dominated by military purposes and then what happens to the research establishment when military funding is cut back. In 1996 the end of the cold war provided ample evidence of the problems that resulted. More recently in the West, state funded research directed at the war on terror has been curtailed as national economies falter and the political winds shift. The principles outlined in the book lay the foundation and the reader must fit the model to the reality.
The popularity of crowd funding opens new possibilities for funding research and, in my estimation, is a sign that the author is correct about the efficacy of laissez faire.
One interesting idea that is mentioned multiple times in this book is that to copy a technology in an effort to catch up with the technology leader is relatively in-expensive and results in fast growth. I had first been exposed to this same idea in The Venturesome Economy. But here, the idea is explored in more depth and the implications to both the technology leader and the copycat are presented. Yes, catching up takes less time and resources, but once you catch up with the state-of-the-art you will have to pay a price to keep moving forward. Two competitors on the cutting edge of technology will have to pay the same price--simultaneously, if they want to keep moving forward with no one following. The implications of this natural consequence of research can often fool the observer and on such misconceptions have many companies and governments embarked on great programs to ensure competitive success by consolidating and directing resources. In the venture capital case the purpose isn't so much to be a copycat, but to exploit and develop research in an area that can profit from the effort--so in many ways, venture funding is a manifestation of laissez faire support of research.
During most of the book I kept thinking that it would have been wonderful if in graduate school I had been exposed to this book and the economic laws of research. I even thought of writing my graduate advisor and recommending this book to his current students. If you are pursuing a professional path that will involve research it would be worth your while to understand the topics discussed in this book. About two-thirds of the way through I began to change my mind--perhaps it wouldn't be such a good idea to pass this title into academia. Would the author's message fall on deaf ears? Certainly the author will have his detractors. A key argument is that in a laissez faire approach to funding research, the research that is funded will have a greater impact than research that is funded in a dirigiste manner. This is a dangerous idea and it has been challenged for many, many years. If you have experienced industrial research in a commercial setting, or been exposed to venture capital funding of technology then the author's arguments will come across as plain and well founded. If you have been the beneficiary of government funding for your research you will find many things that will challenge your world view. On page 331 the author describes how his arguments have been received by scientists, academics, artists, and intellectuals: "Every practising scientist to whom I have suggested that [a laissez faire approach to funding would result in more voluntary financial support of science] has stared back at me as if I were dangerous, mad and possibly rabid; i.e. every practising scientist I have encountered has believed, Rousseau-like, that he, almost uniquely, possesses a morally sublime view of society's need for pure science, but that the mass of people are blind to their responsibilities, and have to be dragooned by the State into funding research." Certainly, as your current research contract comes to an end and funding is not immediately on the horizon it is not a stretch to take the view of Rousseau. There are some very honest and blunt criticisms leveled against the status quo of research funding.
Published in 1996, there were a few places in the text that I would have liked to see more current figures and examples--though the arguments hold up very well. His warnings on government efforts to make state funded academic science more industrially relevant ring true. Similarly, he projects the impact of what happens when funding of research is dominated by military purposes and then what happens to the research establishment when military funding is cut back. In 1996 the end of the cold war provided ample evidence of the problems that resulted. More recently in the West, state funded research directed at the war on terror has been curtailed as national economies falter and the political winds shift. The principles outlined in the book lay the foundation and the reader must fit the model to the reality.
The popularity of crowd funding opens new possibilities for funding research and, in my estimation, is a sign that the author is correct about the efficacy of laissez faire.
One interesting idea that is mentioned multiple times in this book is that to copy a technology in an effort to catch up with the technology leader is relatively in-expensive and results in fast growth. I had first been exposed to this same idea in The Venturesome Economy. But here, the idea is explored in more depth and the implications to both the technology leader and the copycat are presented. Yes, catching up takes less time and resources, but once you catch up with the state-of-the-art you will have to pay a price to keep moving forward. Two competitors on the cutting edge of technology will have to pay the same price--simultaneously, if they want to keep moving forward with no one following. The implications of this natural consequence of research can often fool the observer and on such misconceptions have many companies and governments embarked on great programs to ensure competitive success by consolidating and directing resources. In the venture capital case the purpose isn't so much to be a copycat, but to exploit and develop research in an area that can profit from the effort--so in many ways, venture funding is a manifestation of laissez faire support of research.
December 3, 2021
Despite a good share of "laissez-faire evangelism" which is not acceptable in the book on economic-scientific history, Kealey's work is remarkable. He presents both theory and historical record (of European and East-Asian economies) which completely demolish most of the arguments for government-funded science. To his credit, Kealey makes an exception for Defense which just proves the rule: scientific research is more effective when it is funded privately.
March 18, 2016
Kealey combines economic history, public choice theory, and economics in this insightful work. The Economic Laws of Scientific Research is a wide ranging and ambitious book, but Kealey is up to the challenge. The book addresses a few fundamental questions about scientific research. Namely, is it necessary for the government to fund scientific research? Where does new technology tend to come from? How have past civilizations settled these questions?
Kealey frames the book in the context of two "visions" of scientific research. The mainstream vision, most eloquently stated by Francis Bacon, follows the so called "linear model" of scientific research. This model states that from pure science flows applied science and technology, followed by wealth, with a healthy injection of government funds into the first two steps.
The second vision, which Kealey attributes to Adam Smith, holds that new technology, and wealth, tends to flow out of innovation from pre-existing technology, and not primarily from pure scientific research. Even so, Smith did not think that government funding was a necessary precondition to get the advantages of technological innovation, or even scientific research.
The book then dives into an in-depth analysis of the history of scientific research, and government's relationship with it. Kealey finds that technological and scientific growth comes most readily with a free market, and a policy of laissez-faire. Smith's hypothesis is shown, empirically, to hold weight. Innovation and new technology develops from those working in the industry, and those that have a vested interest in the increased productivity that can result. When it pays to fund research, private organizations (and industry) do. Scientific progress and innovation has no necessary relationship with the government, despite the institutions that persist today.
Kealey also spends some time analyzing how the state came to be so heavily involved with science. It began when various European countries attempted to emulate the economic success of Great Britain (whose science was overwhelmingly funded from industrial and private sources), but substituted state management and guidance. In addition, war often led to a call for more government funding and management of science for defense purposes (as happened in the United States during the Civil War, World War One, World War Two, and the Cold War).
Ultimately, the purpose of scientific research and advancement is more wealth, prosperity, and happiness. Kealey shows that the best and easiest route to this is through a policy of laissez-faire in scientific research, and not one of government intrusion. Smith is proved correct, and Bacon's vision ought to be left in the dust bin of history .
Kealey frames the book in the context of two "visions" of scientific research. The mainstream vision, most eloquently stated by Francis Bacon, follows the so called "linear model" of scientific research. This model states that from pure science flows applied science and technology, followed by wealth, with a healthy injection of government funds into the first two steps.
The second vision, which Kealey attributes to Adam Smith, holds that new technology, and wealth, tends to flow out of innovation from pre-existing technology, and not primarily from pure scientific research. Even so, Smith did not think that government funding was a necessary precondition to get the advantages of technological innovation, or even scientific research.
The book then dives into an in-depth analysis of the history of scientific research, and government's relationship with it. Kealey finds that technological and scientific growth comes most readily with a free market, and a policy of laissez-faire. Smith's hypothesis is shown, empirically, to hold weight. Innovation and new technology develops from those working in the industry, and those that have a vested interest in the increased productivity that can result. When it pays to fund research, private organizations (and industry) do. Scientific progress and innovation has no necessary relationship with the government, despite the institutions that persist today.
Kealey also spends some time analyzing how the state came to be so heavily involved with science. It began when various European countries attempted to emulate the economic success of Great Britain (whose science was overwhelmingly funded from industrial and private sources), but substituted state management and guidance. In addition, war often led to a call for more government funding and management of science for defense purposes (as happened in the United States during the Civil War, World War One, World War Two, and the Cold War).
Ultimately, the purpose of scientific research and advancement is more wealth, prosperity, and happiness. Kealey shows that the best and easiest route to this is through a policy of laissez-faire in scientific research, and not one of government intrusion. Smith is proved correct, and Bacon's vision ought to be left in the dust bin of history .
April 4, 2017
18/20
August 16, 2022
This is kind of an early verson of his other book with a less sexy title.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews