Science, society and money

But it's gonna take money,
A whole lot of spending money.
It's gonna take plenty of money,
To do it right, child.
It's gonna take time,
A whole lot of precious time.
It's gonna take patience and time,
To do it, to do it, to do it, to do it, to do it,
To do it right!

 

George Harrison (1943-2001)

 

 

Much has been written on the fact that doing (good) science requires money. Essays have looked at how much countries invest in science as function of the GDP, how much of this investment comes from the private sector and even some indication of productivity stems from socio-economic analysis, often carried out by the academic community. Papers produced by dollar invested, papers by scientist or the number of scientists per inhabitant are examples of this. Also, monetary return ratios per units of investment are showcased to highlight the contribution of science to the economy.

 

Productivity indicators are called for because the scientific community uses-to a very variable degree- taxpayers money and this is a way to show what is done with it. Moreover, in some countries, scientists are fully paid by state funds which creates an additional pressure component. Interestingly however, scientist throughout the world have one the most transparent accountancy models out there: paper publication. Writing papers and presenting work at scientific meetings are all carefully gauged by peers, and jobs badly done will hardly see the light. In addition, funding is also tied to proposals and when successful, to reports which are scrutinized by zealous administrators and peer-led committees.

 

Nevertheless, such accountability is established and made work by the scientific community at large and does not mean that the results will impact society in some way or another. This appears to be a common concern of many national and regional governments as well as of academic institutions. In given socio-political contexts, the idea can be tied to sovereignty and hence, can be a significant, actionable concern.

 

There are several (remarkable) pitfalls to this linear analysis. One has to do with the time axis. Impact of given research on our economy or life quality can take much time, often much more that that associated with a funded grant proposal or even a given scientific career. If we close our eyes for a moment, we can picture many several examples of this.  Another has to do with the way science works. Creativity and diversity are at the core of innovation and novelty so limiting basic research to an illuminated few, can only lead to less impact. Again, how many remarkable advances have emerged from casual, unintended research, we can rapidly recall.

 

Finally, there is the money. In line with the call for a better accountability of scientific research, usually comes limited or oriented funding. Because science is intrinsically costly, reducing funding and likening it to a ‘cost’ or asking scientists to re-direct their work and spend some important part of their research efforts to study things that ‘matter’ is unlikely to yield better results. It also impacts basic research which is fundamental to any modern society.

 

This is because in many ways science resembles art. It is a collective output of societies, that showcases culture and idiosyncrasy. Artists do what the know how to do, with the resources they have, and among what may be seen as unremarkable artistic works, some works are so outstanding that they enrich our spirit and guess what? …yes, can also create very significant revenues in the long run.

 

I started with a quote from George Harrison, during que solo era. George was on the famous fab four that made what is probably the best-known music band worldwide. The Beetles contributed enormously to the fame of British rock and pop while creating economic revenues worth  billions.  I think we would all agree that putting them to re-paint the zebra crossing at Abbey Road, would not have been a productive use of their time. Neither would have been suggesting Darwin, Mendel or Fisher to get ‘real’ jobs.