Hate it or Love it
|
|
Since its publication, I've found only two kinds of readers of Kealey's book: those who hate it (very much), and those who love it (very much). If nothing else, this reception is a proof of the success of a book which is meant to be provocative. At the same time, interestingly, those who hate the book are mostly Kealey's scientific colleagues. Perhaps, it confirms Clark Kerr's, the President Emeritus of UC Berkeley, observation that, in general, academics hold liberal views about the affairs of the others, but when it comes to their own, their can be terribly conservative. To ask professional academics to read Kealey's book open-mindedly is therefore a challenge to their (self)criticality. Kealey challenges them to contemplate the very possibility that might it be true that science is not best funded by the state (and that academics - and students - might have a better life if the state is not the sole customer/provider of higher education). This suggestion is so against the fundamental academic complacency and self-serving pre-conception that it is often misread and distorted by its critics. Kealey does NOT suggest that science should (or could) be funded solely by industry. Rather he champions the plurality of funding including the state, industry, and, don't forget, private charity, endowments, and other sources. Of course, he ALSO says that the less the state intervenes, the best for science; that it is the market, not lobbying political ac-tion, which will more likely improve the quality of life and work of scientists. [And Kealey's comparison between the individualistic, competitive environment of university science and the sometimes more col-legial milieu of collaborative research in commercial laboratory (p.331) is echoed in Paul Rabinow's ethnography of the biotech startup company Cetus in "Making PCR" (Chicago University Press, 1996)]. These commitments are his motives for writing this explicitly polemical book. True, his detractors would consider some of the excesses of his satirical style abusive, his analyses sometimes too crude. But Kealey expounds his ideology forthrightly with support of reasons and evidence. Surely the case of the much larger claim underlying Kealey's book, namely his faith in laissez faire (Adam Smith's style, not Thatcher's), remains to be argued for in order convince his ideological opponents (which of course can-not be done, if at all, in a single book whose primary topic is the economics of science). Still, with his arguments and data (and their implications) laid out clearly, readers are allowed to judge for themselves. If the book is opinionated as its critics accuse, then at least it is eminently superior to the propaganda of the science activists disguised as self-evident science policy recommendations. Specifically the readers will have to decide whether Kealey's rebuttal of the Baconian view of science (policy) is valid. First, is it true that science is a public good as Arrow and many economists argue? Or, is Kealey right to pinpoint that scientific knowledge is never freely available because to assimilate, integrate, and apply it requires scientific expertise. That's why even industry R&D has to employ scientists, and cannot afford NOT to allow (i.e. to fund) them to do basic (not immediately applicable) science as they like (pp.226-232). Sec-ond, is it true that there are things (e.g. education of the poor, or basic science) which selfish individuals will never do, but only the State can (and should)? Or, should we rethink this Rousseausque vision of the individual and the state, and to question, with Kealey, why do so many people (mostly the public, not just scientists) urge that we should trust the State (with all its deficiencies and inefficiencies) to do something the very same people argue the individuals (which SHOULD include them as well) would NOT see the benefit of doing (pp.330-1)? Moreover Kealey's book is not only about the politics and economics of science, its final sections on the psychology of the intellectuals are no less illuminating because they provide an analysis (and prediction) of why professional academics would be so offended by the book. Ultimately, as mentioned above, Kealey's book is a test of this group of readers' courage to give it a fair hearing because, not in spite, of how much it undermines their most cherished beliefs about the world and themselves.
|
|
|
A mind-changing book
|
|
Terence Kealey is a scientist by profession, but an economic historian in his spare time. In this beautifully written book, with wit and verve, he amasses a devastating indictment of government's role in scientific research--with fascinating examples to back it up. If it does not change your mind, it is your open-mindedness that is in doubt.
|
|
|
United States | 
United Kingdom | 
Canada