Distribution of Grant-in-Aid for Basic Research
Discussed distribution of Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research to [Basic Research
The argument that researchers should use one's own money to do research.
If it's useful research, (the) market (as a concept) pays
No. Basic research that has long-term value but has no clear short-term value would be underinvested if left to the market.
Related: Market or Policy?
nishio There are different interpretations of whether university faculty are workers whose salaries are determined by the benefits they receive, or whether they are public infrastructure that the government should invest in for the future. Seems to be.
I just checked and saw that this was "university faculty" not "basic research".
Is basic research really public infrastructure?
What is public infrastructure anyway?
positive externalities?
If basic research is public infrastructure, why does Japan pay for the world's public infrastructure?
Free ride possible, right?
For example, public infrastructure, such as roads, does not collect fees from all citizens.
Citizens without sufficient income are not taxed.
Whether spending on things that have no clear short-term value creates "an understanding" depends on the citizen's pocketbook.
If you can afford it, "Well, that's okay, isn't it?" becomes
If you can't afford it, then you'll say, "I'd rather spend it on this than on that!" that would be
henceforth
I pitched it to omni and got this output: "Should scientists who do basic research operate on their own dime, or should the government invest in it as public infrastructure that is underinvested if left to the market?"
Basic research plays an important role for the benefit of society as a whole and should be invested in by the government as public infrastructure. However, that investment should be directed toward nonobjective activities, not toward objectives. In addition, basic research and industrial applications should proceed independently, and one should not dominate the other.
I've pulled "What the government should be spending money on is non-objective tinkering, not research" from antivulnerability as a citation.
What the government should be spending money on is non-objective tinkering, not research...
I don't believe that the conclusion that "no government funding is needed at all" can be logically drawn. What I am objecting to is not so much the research in general, but rather the objectives...
The problem is that the officials' approach is too purposive (especially in Japan).
The same is true for large corporations. For most large corporations, such as giant pharmaceutical companies, the enemy is themselves.
The rest of it is /motoso/ what I can't relate to is worthless.
It is natural that "research is done because we don't know, and if we knew from the beginning, we wouldn't be doing it," and therefore, "basic research and industrial applications should be done separately.
Related to difficulty in being understood: Anything that is far from your values will be undervalued..
The development research conducted in R&D departments of companies is only possible when basic research is conducted purely to obtain new knowledge, without assuming specific applications. --- Japanese evolutionary theory].
This is another "non-objective tinkering."
In addition, he mentions the importance of human resource development
As in the past, human resource development by universities is also important. Both MIT and Stanford University place the highest priority on the value of human resources and focus on their development. There is no doubt that human resources will grow if money is spent. I believe that the government should provide support and make sure that this is done properly.
---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/基礎研究に対する科研費の分配 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.