In America, religion flourishes. It gets no subsidies from the government except for various tax exemptions. There is religious diversity and religious dynamism. In Europe, governments have subsidized Roman Catholicism and Protestantism over the years. In these countries, religion either languishes or tends to be monolithic. But don’t take my word for it. Read the work of Laurence Iannaccone, a top expert on the economics of religion.
The more the government gets mixed up in religion, science – or anything for that matter – the more bias, corner-cutting and groupthink is likely to result. Climate science is starting to look like a really good example of this effect. Indeed, if you are one that thinks the $23 million Exxon-Mobil has thrown at climate change skepticism has lead to “bias,” consider the $79 billion
since 1989 in government largess that has gone to “consensus” climate science.
Wait. You don’t think government-funded scientists face perverse incentives? Think again.
One of the principle players in the Climategate scandal has, himself, received over $3 million for his contributions to the IPCC’s body of research. When you consider that climate skepticism has gotten 1/1000th of that from Big Oil, accusations that the oil industry has corrupted the debate start to look a little silly.
“But the government’s charge is only to find the truth!” they’ll cry. “They don’t have a stake in the outcome.” (Now look in the mirror and say that three times with a straight face.) For politicians, $79 billion is an investment in the trillions
in ROI they can expect from cap-and-trade revenues—not to mention all the green energy special interests groups that will jockey to fill their campaign coffers. I know, I know. Many bureaucrats are honest folks. But the idea that government scientists and their funders are immune to incentives because they get our tax dollars is, well, laughable.
Of course, none of this is to argue that scientific truth doesn’t stand on its own. Arguments should be judged on their merits and on accurate observable data, not whether they were funded by oil money or Barack Obama’s federal credit card.
So here’s a radical idea: how about the separation of Science and State modeled after the 1st Amendment? I can hear the outcries: “Heavens! What will be the fate of science if government funding dries up? It will disappear! We won’t get pure research!” Again, there are plenty of analogs in American religion. But more importantly, no one ever stops to ask what kinds of science never emerges because central bureaucrats decide to pick and choose what’s important and what’s not–using our scarce resources to pick those winners and losers.
With a decentralized system of science funded via private patronage and university-based philanthropy, we may not get capital-T Truth to rise up and glow above the people like a beacon. But we will get more diversity and less politicization. Then we’ll be more likely to get a natural coalescence of the scientific community around a view – one subject to the forces of refutation, rather than politics and activism.
