卡托研究所-别像中国：美国政府为什么要削减科学预算（英文）-2021.5-6页_136kb

Economic Policy Brief Summary

Core Content

This document critiques the recent U.S. and UK government initiatives to significantly increase science funding, arguing that such measures are misguided and counterproductive. The author, Terence Kealey, suggests that these policies are driven by a perceived threat from China, rather than a genuine need for government intervention in scientific research. He contends that government funding of science does not lead to significant economic benefits and instead crowds out private investment, leading to inefficiencies in the translation of scientific discoveries into commercial applications.

Main Arguments

1. The U.S. and UK Science Funding Initiatives

• Context: President Biden proposed a 20% increase in U.S. science funding, which has bipartisan support. The UK also aims to double its science funding.
• Reasoning: These initiatives are framed as responses to China's growing technological capabilities, which are described as "repressive" and a threat to Western leadership in science and technology.
• Criticism: The author argues that these measures will fail to achieve their intended goals and may exacerbate economic decline.

2. Historical Perspective on Government Funding

• Origins of Government Science Funding: The U.S. federal government began funding pure science in 1950 with the establishment of the National Science Foundation (NSF).
• Vannevar Bush’s Pipeline Model: Bush proposed that government funding would correct for market and military failures in science. However, this model was discredited after the launch of Sputnik in 1957.
• ARPA and DARPA: The U.S. created ARPA (later DARPA) to fund research with specific technological goals, which proved more effective than the pipeline model.

3. Government Funding and Crowding Out

• Crowding Out Effect: Government funding of science leads to a reduction in private investment because it results in lower returns for private funders.
• Scientific Talent Distribution: Scientific talent follows a power law distribution, with a small number of elite researchers driving most innovation. These researchers are more likely to be funded by the government due to its peer-review system.
• Impact on Innovation: Separating science from technology leads to inefficiencies in commercialization and hinders the mutual benefits between pure science and technological advancement.

4. Empirical Evidence from Audits

• Project Hindsight (1969): Found that only 2 out of 700 research events led to weapons systems, undermining the pipeline model.
• Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Audits:
  • 1991: Federal R&D spending showed little to no impact on productivity.
  • 1998: Similar findings, highlighting that private R&D yields higher returns than public R&D.
• OECD Study (2003): Confirmed that public R&D does not significantly drive economic growth and that private R&D is the key driver.
• Leo Sveikauskas (2007): Concluded that the returns to R&D are substantial but only for privately funded research in industry.

5. Moral Panic and Cold War Parallels

• Cold War Context: The launch of Sputnik triggered a moral panic in the U.S., leading to increased government funding for science.
• Fallacy of Market Failure: The argument that government must fund science to correct market failure is shown to be fallacious.
• Current Panic: The author warns that the current Anglophonic world is repeating the same mistakes by reacting to China's technological rise with increased government funding.

Key Information

• Government Funding Inefficiency: Government-funded science does not enhance productivity or economic growth significantly.
• Private Sector Efficiency: Private companies are more effective in translating scientific research into commercial applications and technological innovation.
• Crowding Out Effect: Government funding displaces private investment, reducing the overall quality and innovation in the scientific community.
• China's Economic Status: Despite its technological advancements, China's GDP per capita is still much lower than the U.S., suggesting that the current panic is disproportionate.
• Case Study of Katalin Kariko: Her move from academia to industry led to critical breakthroughs in mRNA vaccine development, illustrating the benefits of private sector research.

Conclusion

The author concludes that while mission-based government research has a role in national security and public good, the notion that government must fund science to correct market failure is flawed. He warns that increased government funding will lead to the displacement of private innovation and ultimately contribute to economic decline, rather than technological advancement.