On cutting science funding: I’m a Harvard and Caltech grad who has been doing research and teaching at Arizona State University for 21 years. Your suggestion of flowing federal research funding away from a few prestigious institutions is great, except for two things, below.
First, decentralization of funding seems to me to have already been a general trend for the past generation or two. This is anecdotal - I don’t have the data at my fingertips - but it’s how and why I’ve been able to build a first-rate research program at what used to be thought of as a party school - and how such a school has been able to ascend the ranks of high-impact institutions. When I was a grad student, you pretty much had to be at a “prestige” institution to build a first-rate career. That hasn’t been true for a long time. More such decentralization would be great, but this should be understood as “more, please” not a pivot from past practice. (If there are data that prove me wrong, then I’ll withdraw this critique).
Second, and more importantly, what you propose is decidedly not what is happening under this Administration. The proposed cuts to overhead rates damage the entire research enterprise, and in fact hurt hardest those institutions that do not have wealthy alumni who might pick up some of the slack of infrastructure costs - which is to say, non-elite institutions doing research. At ASU, for example, we’ve expanded our labs through bond issues backed by our federal overhead income. At Harvard, large donors can and do help fund the facilities. There’s been no suggestion of which I’m aware to modulate these cuts based on institutional wealth or other “elite” measures. The blunt cuts to NSF, NASA, and so many other agencies similarly are not modulated in any way to spare or buffer the damage beyond the elite institutions. It’s an all-out assault, across the board, harming all research-intensive institutions. The elite institutions can surely keep it up regardless. The rest of us? It’s a dicier proposition, ultimately dependent on the will of state legislatures and governors, and the latitude they give to university leaders to change the ways the universities finance research.
So, great idea, in the category of “if only it were so”. Or rather, “if only the Administration you support wasn’t doing pretty much the opposite”. Instead of talking to an economist, who has never run or worked in a laboratory, talk to someone who knows a thing or two about the realities of research funding and university management outside of elite institutions! Get ASU Pres. Michael Crow… (It is ironic to see you of all people, Oren, ground your thoughts on this topic in the thoughts of an elite economist, as though they are relevant to what’s really going on).
Maybe they are trying to get a lot of the R&D money away from the universities and especially elite universities period. Like it was before 2000. Back before 2000 the universities did not get this much attention and R&D money. They were schools to teach our kids. I know, my kids went to Florida in the late 1990's. Later, after 2000 there is no way they would have been able, as today, to go to Florida being regular local kids with good grades. Florida mostly just wants these R&D type set-ups because that's where the money is. The patent money and government grant money is huge. I was right in the middle of all this changing back in Gainesville in 2000 with my kids. This same set up is at ASU too.
I don't trust the universities with this, and they should be educating not being government grant institutions for research. If so, start paying taxes. Poor Gainesville FL starves as the university gets richer. Pay taxes then. Same as ASU.
Better ways to do R&D than using the universities. Back to how we used to do it.
That's a point worth debating, and I think you are correct that it is part of what is driving Administration policy, but it is diametrically opposed to what Oren is advocating.
"Trying to get a lot of the R&D money away from the universities and especially elite universities" basically seems to be saying that R&D money either shouldn't be spent or should be prioritized on Federal labs or given over to industry. Those of us who have experience across the R&D sectors know that Federal and industrial labs generally don't do the curiosity-driven research that ends up eventually fueling most of the work in government and industry, as well as research that tackles "big questions" that humans care about beyond their near term practical benefit (How did humans evolve? What is Earth's place in the Universe? Are we alone?). And neither do much training or teaching, of the researchers they need - and have no interest in doing so.
If a majority in the country has decided that we don't want more innovation and don't care enough to learn more about those big questions, then ok - it's a democracy so we live with it, even if it means China rises to dictate terms in the back half of the 21st century. We can fade into second-tier status like Europe did... But the Admin didn't win on that basis.
(None of this is to say that universities can't do things better, even in basic research, but the Admin doesn't seem to have any "rebuild" carrot waiting after the "tear down" stick; it seems we will only "build back better" when this destructive fever has passed.)
You're assuming that the goal is to make science funding more efficient and effective. I'm not sure that's accurate. It appears to be mostly performative: anti-wokeness and revenge against the libs.
It's rather like Trump's immigration raids. Mandatory e-verify with major fines for hiring illegals and imprisonment for business owners who refused to stop would be far more effective by drying up job opportunities. But people who leave of their own accord don't produce photo ops.
Similarly, there are lots of quiet ways (that would also fight wokeness) to make science funding better. But Trump prefers loud and performative instead of quiet and effective. The P.T. Barnum comparison is accurate.
(Note, I say this as someone who voted for him all 3 times, is glad he won, and supports an America First agenda. I'm just clear-eyed that the success of that agenda is as often in spite of Trump as it is because of him.)
BTW: Ian Fletcher made the optimal tariff argument 25 years ago (when it was very unpopular) in Free Trade Doesn't Work. He doesn't get credit for it, but the Reagan aphorism about credit rather applies here.
It's always interesting to see how Oren applies lipstick to the pig. There is plenty of warranted criticism for the elite institutions where elites like Oren matriculated. I share much of it. But seriously, advancing the notion that Don's actions in this area are based on a strategery of spreading research largesse around the country? I recommend for Oren's weekly reading the public quotes from the godfather of his "new" right on this topic. And of course his bleats on "Truth" Social. Don tells us exactly what the goal is, why does Oren choose not to believe him?
But alas, maybe Oren is right. Maybe science-loving administration leaders like RFK Jr have a plan, and are leading us to the vanguard of global scientific thought. Maybe. But maybe it's the case that this attack on centers of dissent, including universities, are similar to efforts we've witnessed in Poland, Turkey, Hungary, Mexico, etc?
Authoritarian regimes lie repeatedly about what they have done, but are typically quite transparent about what they aspire to do. I'd suggest to Oren that he bone up on what the founder of the "new" right is actually saying and doing...not what elite economists wish he'd do.
You say the following, - "Those of us who have experience across the R&D sectors know that Federal and industrial labs generally don't do the curiosity-driven research that ends up eventually fueling most of the work in government and industry"
So, our world renown National Laboratories that have been around for years, some since 1910 and may started during WWII and got the world wide web, computers, microchips, cell phones, GPS, rocket ships, and on and on are not curiosity driven or as implied not worthy? They are what started Silicone Vally itself and still drive it today. They allowed Gates, Jobs, Allen, all the "geniuses" to prosper and grow, to even start. Same with the rest of the big tech driven companies.
Big universities and even big companies like Micro soft and the rest do not have the tolerance to go years on end not turning a profit, yes even the big universities. Shareholders and stakeholders want their money. You guys can't handle the risk. It has to be government backed. Yell free enterprise all you want but this is the truth.
The Universities have become a racket and need to go back to just teaching our kids. Especially leadership skills on how to lead. Ethics, principles, honor, these things that used to be taught in Western Civics classes and other classes but are not anymore as requirements to pass. They are now just diploma mills for kids that will be indebted for years to come with diplomas that are really pretty useless. A lot of them. Not all! But many.
as clueless. Space X got them. Much of it driven from information and knowledge from the labs and others too. They don't do what they do alone.
Universities and private companies can't take the risk bottom line.
Thank you,
You guys got in by getting on the laisse-faire bandwagon many years ago that has proven to not work and was never true in the first place. This is all ending and has to, or we will be gone within 10 years the way we are going.
Look up DARPA and our National Labs and see for yourself.
DARPA was a pretty successful funding model (check out the list of successes flowing from it…). As a counter point to your argument on the uselessness of the concentration of research, production, capital and talent in a concentrated area to achieve scientific breakthrough. The Los Alamos site of the Manhattan project debunks this line of argument.
Ironically, America benefited from the great emigration of European scientists in the 20th century, the opposite is taking place right now. Check out the number of Americans working at ARIA in the UK, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (the equivalent of DARPA in the UK).
The current U.S. approach to science funding is blinded by ideology, leading to an exodus of talent.
That was a great discussion--Simon Johnson is a great guy and the epitome of serious big-picture thinking. So thanks for hosting him!! For the younger members I suggest reading his book 13 bankers--it's possibly the best book to be published in the immediate wake of the '08 collapse. The core thesis--that we should revert to simpler and more enforceable regulatory scaffolding--seems more relevant than ever.
On cutting science funding: I’m a Harvard and Caltech grad who has been doing research and teaching at Arizona State University for 21 years. Your suggestion of flowing federal research funding away from a few prestigious institutions is great, except for two things, below.
First, decentralization of funding seems to me to have already been a general trend for the past generation or two. This is anecdotal - I don’t have the data at my fingertips - but it’s how and why I’ve been able to build a first-rate research program at what used to be thought of as a party school - and how such a school has been able to ascend the ranks of high-impact institutions. When I was a grad student, you pretty much had to be at a “prestige” institution to build a first-rate career. That hasn’t been true for a long time. More such decentralization would be great, but this should be understood as “more, please” not a pivot from past practice. (If there are data that prove me wrong, then I’ll withdraw this critique).
Second, and more importantly, what you propose is decidedly not what is happening under this Administration. The proposed cuts to overhead rates damage the entire research enterprise, and in fact hurt hardest those institutions that do not have wealthy alumni who might pick up some of the slack of infrastructure costs - which is to say, non-elite institutions doing research. At ASU, for example, we’ve expanded our labs through bond issues backed by our federal overhead income. At Harvard, large donors can and do help fund the facilities. There’s been no suggestion of which I’m aware to modulate these cuts based on institutional wealth or other “elite” measures. The blunt cuts to NSF, NASA, and so many other agencies similarly are not modulated in any way to spare or buffer the damage beyond the elite institutions. It’s an all-out assault, across the board, harming all research-intensive institutions. The elite institutions can surely keep it up regardless. The rest of us? It’s a dicier proposition, ultimately dependent on the will of state legislatures and governors, and the latitude they give to university leaders to change the ways the universities finance research.
So, great idea, in the category of “if only it were so”. Or rather, “if only the Administration you support wasn’t doing pretty much the opposite”. Instead of talking to an economist, who has never run or worked in a laboratory, talk to someone who knows a thing or two about the realities of research funding and university management outside of elite institutions! Get ASU Pres. Michael Crow… (It is ironic to see you of all people, Oren, ground your thoughts on this topic in the thoughts of an elite economist, as though they are relevant to what’s really going on).
Maybe they are trying to get a lot of the R&D money away from the universities and especially elite universities period. Like it was before 2000. Back before 2000 the universities did not get this much attention and R&D money. They were schools to teach our kids. I know, my kids went to Florida in the late 1990's. Later, after 2000 there is no way they would have been able, as today, to go to Florida being regular local kids with good grades. Florida mostly just wants these R&D type set-ups because that's where the money is. The patent money and government grant money is huge. I was right in the middle of all this changing back in Gainesville in 2000 with my kids. This same set up is at ASU too.
I don't trust the universities with this, and they should be educating not being government grant institutions for research. If so, start paying taxes. Poor Gainesville FL starves as the university gets richer. Pay taxes then. Same as ASU.
Better ways to do R&D than using the universities. Back to how we used to do it.
That's a point worth debating, and I think you are correct that it is part of what is driving Administration policy, but it is diametrically opposed to what Oren is advocating.
"Trying to get a lot of the R&D money away from the universities and especially elite universities" basically seems to be saying that R&D money either shouldn't be spent or should be prioritized on Federal labs or given over to industry. Those of us who have experience across the R&D sectors know that Federal and industrial labs generally don't do the curiosity-driven research that ends up eventually fueling most of the work in government and industry, as well as research that tackles "big questions" that humans care about beyond their near term practical benefit (How did humans evolve? What is Earth's place in the Universe? Are we alone?). And neither do much training or teaching, of the researchers they need - and have no interest in doing so.
If a majority in the country has decided that we don't want more innovation and don't care enough to learn more about those big questions, then ok - it's a democracy so we live with it, even if it means China rises to dictate terms in the back half of the 21st century. We can fade into second-tier status like Europe did... But the Admin didn't win on that basis.
(None of this is to say that universities can't do things better, even in basic research, but the Admin doesn't seem to have any "rebuild" carrot waiting after the "tear down" stick; it seems we will only "build back better" when this destructive fever has passed.)
You're assuming that the goal is to make science funding more efficient and effective. I'm not sure that's accurate. It appears to be mostly performative: anti-wokeness and revenge against the libs.
It's rather like Trump's immigration raids. Mandatory e-verify with major fines for hiring illegals and imprisonment for business owners who refused to stop would be far more effective by drying up job opportunities. But people who leave of their own accord don't produce photo ops.
Similarly, there are lots of quiet ways (that would also fight wokeness) to make science funding better. But Trump prefers loud and performative instead of quiet and effective. The P.T. Barnum comparison is accurate.
(Note, I say this as someone who voted for him all 3 times, is glad he won, and supports an America First agenda. I'm just clear-eyed that the success of that agenda is as often in spite of Trump as it is because of him.)
BTW: Ian Fletcher made the optimal tariff argument 25 years ago (when it was very unpopular) in Free Trade Doesn't Work. He doesn't get credit for it, but the Reagan aphorism about credit rather applies here.
It's always interesting to see how Oren applies lipstick to the pig. There is plenty of warranted criticism for the elite institutions where elites like Oren matriculated. I share much of it. But seriously, advancing the notion that Don's actions in this area are based on a strategery of spreading research largesse around the country? I recommend for Oren's weekly reading the public quotes from the godfather of his "new" right on this topic. And of course his bleats on "Truth" Social. Don tells us exactly what the goal is, why does Oren choose not to believe him?
But alas, maybe Oren is right. Maybe science-loving administration leaders like RFK Jr have a plan, and are leading us to the vanguard of global scientific thought. Maybe. But maybe it's the case that this attack on centers of dissent, including universities, are similar to efforts we've witnessed in Poland, Turkey, Hungary, Mexico, etc?
Authoritarian regimes lie repeatedly about what they have done, but are typically quite transparent about what they aspire to do. I'd suggest to Oren that he bone up on what the founder of the "new" right is actually saying and doing...not what elite economists wish he'd do.
You say the following, - "Those of us who have experience across the R&D sectors know that Federal and industrial labs generally don't do the curiosity-driven research that ends up eventually fueling most of the work in government and industry"
So, our world renown National Laboratories that have been around for years, some since 1910 and may started during WWII and got the world wide web, computers, microchips, cell phones, GPS, rocket ships, and on and on are not curiosity driven or as implied not worthy? They are what started Silicone Vally itself and still drive it today. They allowed Gates, Jobs, Allen, all the "geniuses" to prosper and grow, to even start. Same with the rest of the big tech driven companies.
Big universities and even big companies like Micro soft and the rest do not have the tolerance to go years on end not turning a profit, yes even the big universities. Shareholders and stakeholders want their money. You guys can't handle the risk. It has to be government backed. Yell free enterprise all you want but this is the truth.
The Universities have become a racket and need to go back to just teaching our kids. Especially leadership skills on how to lead. Ethics, principles, honor, these things that used to be taught in Western Civics classes and other classes but are not anymore as requirements to pass. They are now just diploma mills for kids that will be indebted for years to come with diplomas that are really pretty useless. A lot of them. Not all! But many.
as clueless. Space X got them. Much of it driven from information and knowledge from the labs and others too. They don't do what they do alone.
Universities and private companies can't take the risk bottom line.
Thank you,
You guys got in by getting on the laisse-faire bandwagon many years ago that has proven to not work and was never true in the first place. This is all ending and has to, or we will be gone within 10 years the way we are going.
Look up DARPA and our National Labs and see for yourself.
Bang on
DARPA was a pretty successful funding model (check out the list of successes flowing from it…). As a counter point to your argument on the uselessness of the concentration of research, production, capital and talent in a concentrated area to achieve scientific breakthrough. The Los Alamos site of the Manhattan project debunks this line of argument.
Ironically, America benefited from the great emigration of European scientists in the 20th century, the opposite is taking place right now. Check out the number of Americans working at ARIA in the UK, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (the equivalent of DARPA in the UK).
The current U.S. approach to science funding is blinded by ideology, leading to an exodus of talent.
"Sure, probably. Yay. Shrug."
That was funny!
No to putting factories back in cities. Might be good for cities but not for industry or workers. Decentralized development is better.
That was a great discussion--Simon Johnson is a great guy and the epitome of serious big-picture thinking. So thanks for hosting him!! For the younger members I suggest reading his book 13 bankers--it's possibly the best book to be published in the immediate wake of the '08 collapse. The core thesis--that we should revert to simpler and more enforceable regulatory scaffolding--seems more relevant than ever.