[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm not sure why you would think that we could come close to current levels of funding if taxes and the govt. funding agencies were removed. Can you explain why you think so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a need for this research? If so, why would it not get funded? If someone finds it valuable, they will pay for it. If they don't find it valuable, why should it be forcibly funded?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is non-profit private research, and there is for-profit university research.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But the overwhelming majority of science (especially that "high-level" science I was talking about earlier) is govt. funded.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep harping on this point, but the fact that government funds the "overwhelming majority" of science has nothing to do with determining if that is the best way to do it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The debate is between government funding and private funding. And the fact that government has distorted the market does not prove that it's more desirable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean you keep making the same circular argument: the government funds most research, therefore the government should fund most research.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's more restrictive? Some government bureaucrat doling out funds to selected projects, or private individuals doing whatever they want?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the govt. bureaucrats handing out the grants for NIH and NSF are scientists themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and they're handing out someone else's money, which means they don't feel much pain when they fund bogus, unneeded projects.

[ QUOTE ]
Private individuals in this case are often motivated by profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Often? How about almost always? Profit is the best motivation possible. What better way is there to determine what people value?

[ QUOTE ]
Basic science does not turn a profit when compared to the "factory-line" style of science common in the firms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they can't compete with the distortion caused by government funding. That doesn't justify government funding, it only highlights the results. The only argument you can build on this fact is a "might makes right" argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I am talking about the basic science that makes the big advances, not the factory-line making drugs slightly more effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your contention is that the market places no value on this "basic" science? If the government didn't fund it, it just wouldn't get done at all?

I can just see Edison in his workshop: "I'd really like to invent a lightbulb, but since the government hasn't funded any research into electricity, I just can't do it."