Has generous public funding been good for science? Or has it been a detriment?
Terence Kealey has argued for the latter, which he outlined in his provocative 2013 essay "The Case against Public Science," part of an essay series on Who Pays for Science? in Cato Unbound. He argues that science does not need public funding to prosper, and that public support of science has largely subsidized institutional rent-seeking by universities and government agencies, and has failed to deliver on the promise of promoting scientific breakthroughs. As such, public science funding has become just another form of corporate institutional welfare.
Join the National Association of Scholars on Friday, August 4, at 3 pm ET for "The Case Against Public Science," the next episode of our Restoring the Sciences webinar series.
This event will feature Terence Kealey, professor emeritus of clinical biochemistry at the University of Buckingham in the United Kingdom, where he served as vice chancellor until 2014. The University of Buckingham is the only private university in the United Kingdom. Since then, Terence Kealey has been affiliated with the Cato Institute, where he continues to analyze science policy. Kealey has an extensive background in the economics of science and university administration.
Photo by Adobe Stock