This article is a re-statement in other words of the economic calculation problem. Government funding severs at the root the only rational connection we have between what the people want society's scarce resources to produce, and what is actually produced. So we shouldn't be surprised when it produces corruption and conflict, because that's all it can produce.

"There is an almost infinite number of brilliant ideas that need public money to show their true value, and governments need a filtering system."

Note that Don's article didn't say:
a) what that alleged "true value" is
b) how it could be known, and
c) what that filtering system could be.

Well guess what? No statist ever answers these questions which are necessary to take their assertions out of the irrational sphere. Because they can't. That's the economic calculation problem.

That's why there should be a separation of separation of science and state: for the same reasons there should be a separation of church and state. Because because, once you remove the rational element:
- all the same irrational credulity, power-worship, and anti-human sentiment is liable to be invested in projects of state-funded "science", and
- because such scientific projects end up being for the same kinds of purposes as church purposes.

For example, nothing could have seemed more innocuous and scientific than the funding of climatology - measuring temperatures, lots of physics and all that. So who would have predicted that it would end up throwing us back to a dark ages of the selling of indulgences - carbon taxes - to fund a monopoly corporation of moral superiority (was the church, now the state) to attone for the impending cataclysm caused by man's moral fault, and lead us to a morally righteous state in which all economic problems are permanently solved - (was paradise, now sustainability). It's just a blatant re-run of the west's traditional religious narrative, only this time with the church replaced by the state.

The problem with science for sciences sake is, the commercial spin offs may be far and few?
Gravitational waves eh?
That might explain the occasional wobbly boot syndrome, but has very little practical applications? Thus far?
A skateboard that floats on thin air, surfs the gravitational waves; (They're big at Bondi!)or a solar powered George Jackson air car, heading south on a solar wind?
And would be nice, as an application of zero gravity, within a very confined and precise area?
I'd imagine there'd be some serious side effects, as one traversed from point A to point B?
Like floating weightless, mooing, meowing, yelping/whelping Dingoes, dogs, cows, cats and horses, hanging on for dear life to weightless, bones, hay bales, chickens, the nose bag etc; and all as distressed as all hell, as would be innumerable extremely irate owners; but particularly those out walking said dog; or riding the horse! Whoa back there Pegasus!
Now we could focus on thing like very rapid rail running underground and in a vacuum, which would easily allow speeds as high as 4,000 klms PH, or near the speed of light, if we could but power them with rail guns.
Inertia, would be a bit of a problem?
I mean the train could just accelerate out of sight, leaving the passengers just sat there!?
[The night was dark and stormy, the air was filled with beer?
Someone took the train away, and left me standing/ hanging there!] The trouble with apologies, nobody hears them in a vacuum!
Rhrosty.

It's unfortunate that science has to rely on funding, but that's the economic system that all societies have, and have always had, including communist systems. All activities need funding.

Without the constraints of funding, science would be light years ahead of it's current position.

Whoa Rhrosty!

Stream of consciousness man.

Time to keep off them chemicals http://youtu.be/y_Ey3AucXFc

Pete

In all fairness, attempting to determine up front which ideas in science will pan out and which will fall by the wayside is difficult. If the answer to research is known before conducting it, there is no point in doing the research. So research funding will always be a bit of a bet in the dark.

Some ways of better managing the risk are to go on the proposal background (does past research indicate the proposed research question is worth asking and will produce useful outcomes) and track record (researchers that have delivered in the past are more likely to deliver again). It is all imperfect.

The trouble with having a market driven approach only is that short-termism becomes the order of the day and little emphasis is put on the big basic questions where the true novel breakthroughs will arise. That is why Governments should be involved in funding research. But even this can become a two-edged sword if ideology becomes the driver for research, such as Lysenkoism in the USSR.

On to the last point about climate change research, I find it somewhat ironic of Don Aitkin to be suggesting there is some sort of conspiracy involved - at least in the research. The research is quite clear, the Earth is warming and human emissions of greenhouse gases are playing a major role. What to do with this result is a whole different question.

Quote Don
"The truth is that ‘climate change’ and climate science have not ever been exposed to the kind of due diligence that is customary in every other form of science, let alone in the world outside. And we all suffer as a consequence.

It is hard to think of any piece of science which has been more rigorously checked than climate science, it has been confirmed by scientific bodies representing all the major countries of the world. Climate science is constantly being tested and checked against reality, and has been for some 200 years. It has been clearly demonstrated that GHGs absorb infrared radiation and that this retards surface cooling. The basic process that underlies this mechanism has been well understood since the early 1960s and was first suspected in the 1820s.

In point of fact the premier organization charged with doing due diligence on climate science is the IPCC, but as you reject its conclusions it is disingenuous to ask for another government investigation, which you hope might produce a result which is more likely to reflect your personal views.

The only consequences of being wrong about AGW is that the air, water and land will be cleaner, the chances of fighting a war over access to fossil fuels resources will be eliminated, plus there is a good chance energy will become cheaper in the long run.

The consequences of believing that AGW is not occurring when it is are dire.
We would see a serious reduction in food crops, droughts, fires, flooding and more intense storms, devastating damage to the natural world (for example the Great Barrier Reef) and armed conflict for the remaining resources