(Guest post by Greg Forster)
In the spirited debate Jay has started on whether the feds should fund research analysis, here’s an angle nobody seems to have picked up – where the money comes from.
Most of Jay’s critics are pointing out that all research has to be funded by somebody, and lots of privately funded research is clearly biased, too – some of it as much as federal research, or more so.
In his replies, Jay has focused on what he thinks is public ignorance of the bias introduced in federally funded research. People assume that research funded by curricular development companies is biased, but they don’t assume that about government research. I’ll agree that that’s a problem to some extent, but I don’t think it’s the biggest problem.
The biggest problem is that government funding isn’t like private funding. Private funders control business interests, but government controls public policy. That provides a ton more potential for corrupting influence (even unconsciously). Which is stronger, the temptation to kiss up to a man who can make you rich or the temptation to kiss up to a man who can make you rich or destroy your whole life, or just about any outcome in between?
Add the fact that government can collect funds coercively from the entire economy and has far greater agency problems in its bureaucracy. This means government largesse is likely to be much more lavish than private largesse and is much less likely to come under any form of scrutiny, whether for cost/benefit purposes or accountability.
With private funders, everyone is equally free to fund the research they want done, and everyone is equally free to judge the results, including taking things with a grain (or a boulder) of salt if you don’t trust the source. Federal research funding tilts the playing field.
Jay P. Greene's Blog 