Separation of Science and State?

[Hogeye]

Governments sometimes try to control science. The most notorious example is that of the LeMarkian evolutionist Lysenko, who became a bigwig in Soviet science, refused support for all non-LeMarkian research - and set back Soviet science decades by missing the whole genetics revolution. Another example was eugenics, which had considerable government support in the US and Germany at one time. A contemporary example is the US biased funding of cannabis research, and banning of unapproved research.

Question: Do you believe that, in general, there should be separation of science and state?

Note 1: The fudge "in general" is to be interpreted to mean the default case, but perhaps allowing some government involvement in extraordinary "emergency" circumstances, such as an asteroid about to destroy earth. The question is meant to address your general principle; not your ability to find extraordinary special cases.

Note 2: Separation of science and State means: the State does not endorse (make any official decrees proclaiming the superiority of) any scientific theory, nor does it directly subsidize any scientific research. In all programs, subsidies, and laws, the government should treat scientific organizations the same as other orgs, i.e. they should not be subject to or exempted from any procedural requirements on the basis of org type.

[Guest]

the poll thing doesn't seem to be working...

[Savonarola]

the poll thing doesn't seem to be working...

Only registered users may vote in polls. This prevents one person from voting multiple times.
In order to vote, a user must be logged in.

-- Sav, Science Moderator

[Savonarola]

If we interpret the question in the same way we interpret the phrase "seperation of church and state," then scientific facts could not be taught in public schools. This is asinine. I can just imagine the following part of a lecture to my students:
"Okay students, we're going to start on projectile motion today. Now, I'm lawfully prohibited from presenting any accepted value of g, so you will have ten minutes to accurately determine the acceleration due to gravity at the earth's surface. However, in justifying your calculations, you may not use Newton's laws, as the school may not endorse the validity or invalidity of Newton's laws..."

The vast majority of funding for scientific research comes from the government. There would be little research without government grants.

Hogeye picks a couple of examples that are not representative of typical government involvement in scientific research. As Lamarckian evolution per se has been decidedly refuted, it is very unlikely that major science organizations -- including ones funded by the government -- would support or promote experiments involving Lamarckian claims. But that is very different than expressly prohibiting all scientific experiments involving Lamarckian claims.

Less to the point, but certainly applicable to the question:
The CDC would be gone. Availability of vaccines would plummet, and their prices would skyrocket.
The state could not hire geologists to find natural resources.
The state could not hire civil engineers to build structures.
etc.

The only way that "seperation of science and state" could work would be if there is no state. I realize that that's what Hogeye is pulling for, but until there's no state, science can't be "seperated" from it.

[Hogeye]

In the middle ages, if one had suggested separation of education and church, someone might have replied, 'But currently all schools are run by church; separation of education and church would prevent teaching.' I'd urge him, and you Savonarola, to keep in mind that we are talking about a possible change from the statist quo. If it helps in your speculation, think of it as some system where there is govt funding, but no govt control beyond that. Kind of like food stamps and school vouchers in theory, or GI Bill grants. The point is, separation of science and State does not mean teachers can't teach science. It may mean that, if separation is a good thing, we should look to alternatives to govt schools, such as private schools, online education, and homeschooling.

As Lamarckian evolution per se has been decidedly refuted, it is very unlikely that major science organizations ... would support or promote experiments involving Lamarckian claims.

Right. So there's no need for government oversight, or manipulation through research funding. The voluntary orgs can handle it.

But that is very different than expressly prohibiting all scientific experiments involving Lamarckian claims.

My understanding is that Lysenko did not prohibit non-Lamarkian experiments. He simply refused to fund them. The more science gets dependent on government largesse, the more subject it is to political influence and censorship of research areas. I have zero faith in the State's wisdom concerning what research to fund. I might have preferred nanotechnology and living to be 200 to nuclear weapons research and a space race.

The CDC would be gone. Availability of vaccines would plummet, and their prices would skyrocket.

This is the barefoot fallacy - the notion that only a State can provide service X. If the government didn't provide shoes, then everyone would go barefoot. The fact is, people and orgs would still be interested in medicine and epidemiology without the interference of State.

[Savonarola]

Why is it I can never spell "separation"? Grrr...

If it helps in your speculation, think of it as some system where there is govt funding, but no govt control beyond that.

Then that would not be separation. After all, the law prevents government money from going to churches. The Florida Supreme Court struck down a law last month that tried to fund school vouchers that could go to religious schools for that very reason.
In my very first sentence of my original response, I qualified how I responded. (I put it first for a reason.) If your definition of "separation of science and state" differs from the analogue of "separation of church and state," then you need to clarify what you mean.

Following the tradition of splitting hairs regarding poll wording, what do you mean by "should"? One could guess that you might respond in the negative because -- after all -- you don't think there should be a state at all, therefore there shouldn't be separation between science and state. If we are going to speculate on possible scenarios including no state-run schools, no public works, etc., then this needs to be clarified in the poll question. I interpreted it simply as asking if the current situation would be improved by mandating a separation of science and state.

The CDC would be gone. Availability of vaccines would plummet, and their prices would skyrocket.

This is the barefoot fallacy - the notion that only a State can provide service X.

In this instance you are correct. However, the other observations still apply. Let us focus on the latter: if the government contracted a company to build a bridge, the government could be viewed as endorsing the scientific reasoning used by that company and its employees. This would violate separation of science and state.
Is the solution to this violation to have the government never build anything? Personally, I like being able to drive on roads and bridges. I think it's important that our state officials have offices in which to conduct their business. How would the state obtain such structures if it were unable to endorse any sort of scientific reasoning or methodology?

Science, being an integral part of our everyday lives, is not separable from anything. The only way to remove science from the state is to have no state, and I'd rather have "entanglement" of science and state than no state.

[Hogeye]

If your definition of "separation of science and state" differs from the analogue of "separation of church and state," then you need to clarify what you mean.

Okay. I'm not taking "separation" in your ultra-strict sense of ''the government should not do anything that may possibly benefit any church or religion''. I'm taking it in the non-establishment sense: the government should be "colorblind" with respect to organizational type, i.e. the government should treat religious entities just like secular entities. So e.g. school vouchers are okay, GI Bill money spent on a semininary is okay, the Salvation Army is eligible for money earmarked for soup kitchens, govt hiring of people who can get a job done (regardless of whether they use science or religion in their efforts) is okay.

This is how most people reading the question would interpret it, I think. To interpret "separation" as the govt not being able to hire engineers is ridiculous, like stipulating that under separation of church and state the government can't hire any theists. (You may like that idea, but that's not how "separation" is usually interpreted.)

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hogeye - prior to the 20th century, private schools and home schooling is pretty much what we had. It wasn't sufficient. Only the monied classes got educated. Recognition of the necessity for universal education is what led to public schools. In your market-driven theory, you should expect the state - who is paying for the education - should say what that "product" should be.

Unregulated market forces ultimately results in all the money (& therefore all the power) being funneled to a single or exceedingly small group of people, with everyone else residing at the serfdom level. Since I think that's a very bad idea - I really like the middle class concept that "freedom" depends on - I want a government to, through regulation, prevent that extreme. Our current one is not doing a very good job of it - the market is regulating the state instead of vice versa (which is the actual source of your complaints, money is being spent by government to enrich and reward unethical behavior of Business) - but we still have the framework in place to turn that around & I hope we do after the next election (at least start to - the current situation is so bad that changing it will be like stopping a battleship going full speed - even reversing the engines will not immediately stop its forward action).

[Savonarola]

I'm taking it in the non-establishment sense: the government should be "colorblind" with respect to organizational type, i.e. the government should treat religious entities just like secular entities.

If your clarification is that you mean it in the "non-establishment sense," then the latter statement contradicts your clarification. The wall of separation between church and state demands that the government should have (little or) nothing to do with religious entities, e.g. no excessive entanglement, whereas you explicitly mentioned giving money for research. I don't see how you can have things both ways.

To interpret "separation" as the govt not being able to hire engineers is ridiculous, like stipulating that under separation of church and state the government can't hire any theists.

These are not analogous. If we were to interpret these "separations" in the same way, then a fair analogy would be that if the government can't hire engineers to use science, then they can't hire theists (chaplains) to pray for Congress. (They do, however, which in my opinion is a violation of the Establishment Clause.) The state's not being able to hire theists would correlate with the state's not being able to hire anyone who believes that scientific approaches are effective. This is not what I was saying.

[Hogeye]

I'm taking it in the non-establishment sense: the government should be "colorblind" with respect to organizational type, i.e. the government should treat religious entities just like secular entities.

If your clarification is that you mean it in the "non-establishment sense," then the latter statement contradicts your clarification.

No it doesn't. Establishment means that the State declares an official religion. The State could hire a engineer to build a bridge. The State needn't care whether the engineer were theist, scientist, both, or neither, so long as he could build a bridge. Admitedly, the scientist would have a better chance to get a good reputation as a bridge-builder than someone who chanted some mumbo-jumbo hoping a bridge would magically appear. But the State could choose successful bridge-builders without regard to their scientific or theistic beliefs, but only with regard to their competency.

But we're way off on a tangent. I suspect that most people interpret "separation of science and state" reasonably, to mean that the State doesn't endorse any scientific theories, or fund science research. (Just as separation of church and state means the State doesn't endorse any religion or denomination or fund churches.)

[Savonarola]

I'm taking it in the non-establishment sense: the government should be "colorblind" with respect to organizational type, i.e. the government should treat religious entities just like secular entities.

If your clarification is that you mean it in the "non-establishment sense," then the latter statement contradicts your clarification.

No it doesn't. Establishment means that the State declares an official religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test
The Supreme Court considers giving money to a religious institution a violation of the Establishment Clause. You say that funding science should be acceptable, but you proceed to say that the government should treat religious entities just like secular ones. This is incoherent at best.

The State could hire a engineer to build a bridge. The State needn't care whether the engineer were theist, scientist, both, or neither, so long as he could build a bridge. Admitedly, the scientist would have a better chance to get a good reputation as a bridge-builder than someone who chanted some mumbo-jumbo hoping a bridge would magically appear. But the State could choose successful bridge-builders without regard to their scientific or theistic beliefs, but only with regard to their competency.

If the government turns down Jones Construction Company because it feels that the Jonesian approach is less "competent" than the Smithian approach taken by Smith Construction Company, then the government endorses Smithian bridgebuilding over Jonesian bridgebuilding.
This is the reason for the third prong of the Lemon test, which I explicity mentioned in my last post.

But we're way off on a tangent.

This "tangent" isn't very tangential, as we are discussing the definition of the term you have created.

I suspect that most people interpret "separation of science and state" reasonably, to mean that the State doesn't endorse any scientific theories, or fund science research.

... think of it as some system where there is govt funding...

You suspect that most people interpret it "reasonably," yet you can't present a coherent interpretation yourself?
It seems that even you don't understand your own term, and since you can't seem to grasp my points, we're not making much progress.


As it appears that I am largely repeating myself in this thread, I hope you can come up with some semblance of reason from which to argue instead of contradicting yourself or injecting meaningless comments about voodoo bridgebuilding and religious beliefs of engineers.

[Hogeye]

The Supreme Court considers giving money to a religious institution a violation of the Establishment Clause.

That's neither here nor there, but I think I see the miscommunication. You are taking "establishment" to mean whatever the latest US Supremes contorted legalistic definition is. I am using the standard meaning of establishment - "a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority." This is, of course, a far cry from the Supremes notion.

If the government turns down Jones Construction Company because it feels that the Jonesian approach is less "competent" than the Smithian approach taken by Smith Construction Company, then the government endorses Smithian bridgebuilding over Jonesian bridgebuilding.

It buys Smith's service. It certainly doesn't endorse Smith's religion, or church, or scientific position on physics or evolution or anything else.

Savonarola, there are various degrees of separation of science/church and State. Suppose the State gives money directly to churches and researchers. This is no separation. Suppose the State gives money to people to subsidize their education, and some (like with the GI Bill) used the money at religious/scientific schools. This is a much larger degree of separation, since the individual (rather than the State) decides where to spend the money. (The food stamp model.) Then there is total separation, where the State subsidizes no one (or is disbanded). All but the first direct subsidy to church/science is (some) separation.

Separation of science and State means: the State does not endorse (make any official decrees proclaiming the superiority of) any scientific theory, nor does it directly subsidize any scientific research. In all programs, subsidies, and laws, the government should treat religious and scientific organizations the same as other orgs, i.e. they should not be subject to or exempted from any procedural requirements on the basis of org type. (color-blind condition)

[Savonarola]

That's neither here nor there, but I think I see the miscommunication. You are taking "establishment" to mean whatever the latest US Supremes contorted legalistic definition is.

Have you even been reading the thread? In every single post I've made, I've been trying to discern what it is you mean by "separation of science and state." Despite my efforts, you can't seem to tell me; as I pointed out earlier, you've repeatedly contradicted yourself.

Separation of science and State means: the State does not endorse (make any official decrees proclaiming the superiority of) any scientific theory [...]

But unofficial declarations are acceptable? What about non-theory concepts or hypotheses? scientific "laws"?
See also farther below.

[...] nor does it directly subsidize any scientific research.

There you go contradicting yourself again.

If it helps in your speculation, think of it as some system where there is govt funding, but no govt control beyond that.

When you're through giving me the runaround, let me know whether separation of science and state means that there's government funding of scientific research, and what you mean by "directly."

It buys Smith's service. It certainly doesn't endorse Smith's religion, or church, or scientific position on physics or evolution or anything else.

Why do you keep bringing Smith's religious views into this discussion? They are irrelevant.
Do you consider engineering unrelated to science?
The government most certainly buys Smith's service, and in doing so it endorses Smithian bridgebuilding over Jonesian bridgebuilding. You have to ask yourself, "Why did the government contract Smith?" By contracting Smith, the government is saying that the Smithian method is better for the situation.
If Smithian bridgebuilding involves using steel and concrete, whereas Jonesian bridgebuilding involves using only thin pieces of splintered wood, I have no problem with the government endorsing Smithian bridgebuilding over Jonesian. If Smith engineers accept that F=ma, but Jones engineers accept that F=ma², I'd have to give the nod to Smith.
Again, in a more realistic scenario: The government could not build, say, a generator, without acknowledging the truth value of Faraday's law. By building the generator, the government says, "Faraday's law is true." The same could be said for Ohm's law, the right-hand rule, and a dozen other scientific concepts.

If the government builds a nuclear bomb, they acknowledge the validity (i.e. "proclaim the superiority") of atomic theory. Does this mean that the technical reason that the government shouldn't build nuclear weapons is because doing so would violate separation of science and state?

[Hogeye]

If it helps in your speculation, think of it as some system where there is govt funding, but no govt control beyond that. Kind of like food stamps and school vouchers in theory, or GI Bill grants.

The quote above seems to confuse you, Savonarola. It refers to indirect funding by government. For education, the State gives money to the milfare recipient (GI Bill), who spends it on whatever ed institution he chooses - even possibly a religious one. For food, the State gives money to an individual who buys at a grocery store - food is not distributed directly through government commissaries. This shows how the State can fund an activity without controlling or owning the actual provider. Direct funding is like the NSF or NIDA, where the State gives money directly to special interests. This latter is obviously more subject to political manipulation, corruption, and bias.

The government most certainly buys Smith's service, and in doing so it endorses Smithian bridgebuilding over Jonesian bridgebuilding.

Right. We agree on this.

The government could not build, say, a generator, without acknowledging the truth value of Faraday's law.

But this is absurd. Counterexample: GW Bush could order the building of a generator, and he doesn't have a clue about Faraday's law. But even if he did, that does not constitute endorsement of Faraday's law - it is simply acknowledging that he expects the generator to work. The attempt to construe buying a good/service as a government endorsement of all conceivable related concepts is ridiculous. If Bush gets a dog, does that imply he believes in evolution? By your logic, since a dog is a result of evolution, Bush endorses the theory of evolution if he buys a police dog for the DEA.

If the government builds a generator, the only thing it acknowledges is that the utility of a generator is greater than the utility of the costs, to some ruler or agent thereof.

[Savonarola]

For education, the State gives money to the milfare recipient (GI Bill), who spends it on whatever ed institution he chooses - even possibly a religious one.

I have to admit, I don't know any details about the GI Bill. I presumed it was very similar to a person being "paid" for his or her duty in the military.
Regardless, I don't think our misunderstanding is with this issue. After all, I don't get upset when a state schoolteacher tithes some of his or her paycheck to a church.

This part of the issue has to do with what is considered direct funding. If the government funds a university, which in turn funds research, is that indirect funding? What if the government funds a university based on the understanding that the university will use some amount of the money for research? Does anything change if the specific research topics have been decided before funding?
For example, if a the UofA expects to be given $1 billion by the government, and the UofA has decided that $2 million of it will go to Professor X's project on scientific concept Y, does that count as direct or indirect funding? And just to muddy up the water, let's remember that the UofA itself is a state institution. How can the UofA fund projects at all if there is to be no direct funding?
If Institute A, which specializes in ecological studies, gets more money than Institute B, which specializes in baraminology, is that favoritism toward non-baraminological endeavors?

The government most certainly buys Smith's service, and in doing so it endorses Smithian bridgebuilding over Jonesian bridgebuilding.

Right. We agree on this.

Okay, since you agree, let's focus here.
Smith uses atomic theory, while Jones doesn't. If the government buys Smith nuclear bombs instead of Jones nuclear bombs, it endorses Smithian bombbuilding. By endorsing Smithian bombbuilding, it endorses the application of atomic theory.

[Hogeye]

Basically, the GI Bill was a school voucher plan which allowed the recipients to spend vouchers on any school, including religious ones.

If the government simply provides money for a general purpose, but has no say in the particulars of how that money is spent, then it is indirect. My model here is food stamps. The govt subsidizes food for the poor, but does not make the decision on what food products are bought. If instead of food stamps, the govt offered food through govt commissaries or govt soup-kitchens, then that would be direct. The key question is: How removed is the government from the final spending decision?

If the government funds a university, which in turn funds research, is that indirect funding?

If the govt gives a research grant to the university to study (intelligent design, evolution, global warming, global cooling, ...), then it is direct. If the govt gives $X per student and leaves all decisions on spending to the students/university/whoever, then it is indirect spending. Those are clearcut examples; no doubt there are gray areas in between.

What if the government funds a university based on the understanding that the university will use some amount of the money for research?

To the degree that the govt does not specify what is to be researched, it is indirect. M. Creighton wrote a paper suggesting a kind of double blind research funding scheme you might find interesting: Aliens Cause Global Warming - a wonderful essay which brings up some good points about the politization of science.

If the money is allocated to research, and a scientific/professional group decides the particular spending, then it is indirect. If the particular spending is done by a govt agency like the NSF, it is direct. If the NSF were spun off from the State and was an independent "NGO", it would be indirect to the extend of its independence.

Does anything change if the specific research topics have been decided before funding?

Yes, that makes all the difference.

And just to muddy up the water, let's remember that the UofA itself is a state institution. How can the UofA fund projects at all if there is to be no direct funding?

Whether funding is direct or not is relative to the funder and fundee. So far, we have been taking the context to be the central government, i.e. the USEmpire, but the same principles apply to Arkansas funding. Again, all depends on the degree of control by the state. Arkansas giving the UofA money for research in general is indirect, earmarking money for rice research is less indirect, earmarking the money for demonstration of the benefits to rice-growners of redirection of water from the White River to the Grand Prarie would be very direct. The idea is dispersion of power from the political rulers to others.

By endorsing Smithian bombbuilding, it endorses the application of atomic theory.

No at all. But it's pretty clear that this is a verbal argument about the word "endorse." You are using the term very expansively. To me, it is ridiculous to say that someone who may not know a thing about atomic physics can be said to "endorse" this or that esoteric theory he's never even heard of. When (an agent of) the govt buys a bomb, that indicates merely that they value that bomb more than they value the plundered money spent to buy the bomb.

[Savonarola]

My model here is food stamps. The govt subsidizes food for the poor, but does not make the decision on what food products are bought.

Once again, I'm hindered by my limited existing knowledge of food stamps. But a quick perusal of the USDA website implies that food stamps are based on need. That is, a family of three with low income will receive less in food stamps than a family of three with no income. The government doesn't know how much to give until certain information is provided.
In the same sense, funding for research ought to be based on need. Giving $2 million to a project, not knowing that the project would cost $100 million, is pretty much a waste of $2M.
In addition, there are restrictions on what potables can be bought with food stamps. In other words, the government does have a say in how the food stamps can and cannot be used, even in regard to buying only foodstuffs.

If the govt gives $X per student and leaves all decisions on spending to the students/university/whoever, then it is indirect spending.

Must all universities receive $X per student? If not, what happens when Institute A, which researches Topic J heavily, gets $X per student, while Institute B, which researches Topic K, gets $Y per student, such that X is not equal to Y? What if J and K are "competing" topics? This results in the same alleged monetary favoritism without breaking your rules.

Those are clearcut examples; no doubt there are gray areas in between.

If these are you "clearcut" examples, I'd hate to see your gray areas!

Does anything change if the specific research topics have been decided before funding?

Yes, that makes all the difference

This is somewhat contradictory what what I think you've said above, so I'd like some clarification:
If, prior to funding, a non-state school has decided that 50% of its funding will go toward some named project, does that prevent the government from funding that school? By giving that school some amount of money, the government is effectively giving half of that amount to the project. According to my interpretation of what you said earlier, you think this would be acceptable, as it is not "direct" in your sense of the word. But here, your statement implies that it is not acceptable.

Arkansas giving the UofA money for research in general is indirect

Since the UofA is state institution, this makes no sense. This is like if I deposit my paycheck into a savings account, then later move it into a checking account, then spend it, saying, "I had absolutely no idea how that money might have been spent. I had no control over the money. I just put it in the savings account..."

To me, it is ridiculous to say that someone who may not know a thing about atomic physics can be said to "endorse" this or that esoteric theory he's never even heard of.

I would like to think that our government employs people who actually know something about topics that tend to come up. Doing so prevents stuff like this:

Homer: Ah, not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, dad.
Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa: By that logic I could just as easily claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: How does it work?
Lisa: ... it doesn't.
Homer: [interestedly] Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: [interestedly] Uh-huh.
Lisa: [sarcastically] But I don't see any tigers around here!
Homer: [takes out a wad of cash] Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

If the government doesn't spend my money based on informed consideration of items to be bought, they damn well ought to. Your argumentation requires the opposite, which is absolutely asinine.

[Hogeye]

I think you understand the food stamp program well enough to see the point - that the food stamp users make virtually all the food purchasing decisions. The separation of science and State is all about this dispersion of power away from rulers.

Must all universities receive $X per student? If not, what happens when Institute A, which researches Topic J heavily, gets $X per student, while Institute B, which researches Topic K, gets $Y per student, such that X is not equal to Y?

All these questions are irrelevant to directness/indirectness of funding.

What if J and K are "competing" topics? This results in the same alleged monetary favoritism without breaking your rules.

Right - but how direct the funding is depends on the basis oon which the central government gives the money away. If the govt looks at the topics, and chooses "global cooling" over "medical cannabis", then it is direct. If the govt allocates on some other basis (number of studends, past performance in grad rate or GPA, number of PHD's on staff) then it is indirect wrt "establishing" science.

Does anything change if the specific research topics have been decided before funding?

I answered, "Yes, that makes all the difference," taking the question to refer to the same subject (the government) both deciding on the topic and funding. Clearly, in this case, it is direct funding. After your clarification, I see you mean: Does anything change if the specific research topics have been decided by an independent non-govt party before funding? In this case, the answer is the same as the previous one: It depends whether the govt is choosing what to fund on the basis of what "scientific" theory they favor or on the basis of some other "colorblind" criteria.

Hogeye> Arkansas giving the UofA money for research in general is indirect.

Savonarola> Since the UofA is state institution, this makes no sense.

First of all, hopefully the UofA has some degree of independence from the state legislature. Profs making the decisions is definitely better - more indirect - than politicians in Little Rock making them. Secondly, you've ripped the quote from its context, a context which clearly shows different degrees of directness. The original quote:

Again, all depends on the degree of control by the state. Arkansas giving the UofA money for research in general is indirect, earmarking money for rice research is less indirect, earmarking the money for demonstration of the benefits to rice-growners of redirection of water from the White River to the Grand Prarie would be very direct. The idea is dispersion of power from the political rulers to others.

In case you don't know: certain powerful rice corporations have (apparently successfully) lobbied the federal and state governments to fund the Army Corps of Engineers to build a pipeline to divert water from the White River to their rice fields in the Grand Prarie. The rice firms, having overused the Grand Prarie aquifer to the point of salinization, want the govt to bail them out. This is greatly politicized.

I would like to think that our government employs people who actually know something about topics that tend to come up.

Who the govt employs is pretty irrelevant to this discussion. We are concerned with the decision-makers, the ruling elite, the successful politicians, who fund research - not petty employees or functionaries. And it's not just ignorance which is the problem, it's political incentives and biases inherent to the institution of State.

[Savonarola]

Must all universities receive $X per student? If not, what happens when Institute A, which researches Topic J heavily, gets $X per student, while Institute B, which researches Topic K, gets $Y per student, such that X is not equal to Y?

All these questions are irrelevant to directness/indirectness of funding.

Quite the contrary: they all relate to a priori knowledge of to what projects funding will go, which you stated "makes all the difference."

If the govt allocates on some other basis (number of studends, past performance in grad rate or GPA, number of PHD's on staff) then it is indirect wrt "establishing" science.

Then a small business school will get the "same research funding" (based on number of students, or whatever you happen to choose) as a large science and engineering school?

hopefully the UofA has some degree of independence from the state legislature. Profs making the decisions is definitely better - more indirect - than politicians in Little Rock making them.

But the profs are state employees, and the UofA is run by the state. How are you making a distinction? Does only the state legislature have to have only indirect say in what gets funded? If the positions held by professors are controlled by a state organization, how does that prevent bias?
Additionally, you ought to see the problem with allowing professors to decide which professors get how much grant money.

Who the govt employs is pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

Who the government employs is entirely relevant to this discussion if those employees have a say in how the money gets distributed, because the state has an influence on those employees.
Are you honestly telling me that -- even though you've been extensively arguing that the government has too much influence -- the government doesn't have significant influence over its own employees?

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

FYI - the Grand Prairie water plan is a COE boondoggle - the rice farmers don't want it, because they'd have to pay for the water - they don't pay for the water they're pulling out of the aquifer. Yes, they have dangerously overdrawn it, but as long as it's free, they're against the Grand Prairie project - so the COE is pushing the state of AR to pick up the tab for a project that endangers NWAR's water supply.

And while I don't want my tax dollars going to phoney research designed to back up the given administration's preferred line - I do most assuredly want my tax dollars targeted, which means the gov't will have to know what the research is about before funding it. Otherwise it's like education block grants - give a chunk of untargeted money and you get 2 new administrators instead of 6 new 2nd grade reading teachers.