# Science and the free market **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 22, 2002, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392 "2002-12-22T16:03:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/21 "2002-12-23T19:27:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > \*\*I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this absurdity. On the one hand, it is hilarious that you would think Ford Motor Co. does scientific research. On the other hand, it really shows how pathetic the U.S. eductation system is. \*\* Now prove it’s absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/22 "2002-12-23T19:34:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Daoloth \* > \*\*Now prove it’s absurd. \*\* Define “scientific research.” ---
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/23 "2002-12-23T19:36:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > \*\*Define “scientific research.” \*\* I’m assuming you have a dictionary, so find it yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/24 "2002-12-23T19:38:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Daoloth \* > \*\*I’m assuming you have a dictionary, so find it yourself. \*\* According to my dictionary, Ford, _et. al._ don’t do any scientific research. In fact, they don’t do science at all. ---
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/25 "2002-12-23T19:43:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > \*\*According to my dictionary, Ford, _et. al._ don’t do any scientific research. In fact, they don’t do science at all. \*\* Then what is done at Ford Motor Co.'s Scientific Research Laboratory in Dearborn, Michigan? Then what is [this?](http://www.aip.org/reports/95annual/industry.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/26 "2002-12-23T20:10:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Define “scientific research” Oh, I know, I know! Pick me! How about atmospheric physics? Does that count? Ford has one of the best atmospheric physics labs in the world. How about materials science? Does that count? Thermodynamics? How about chemistry? Ford employs an awful lot of chemists. How about working with NASA? That’s pretty scientific. Here’s a [joint research program](http://www.sgi.com/industries/manufacturing/ford_nasa.html) between Ford and NASA. But I don’t know why I bother. Chumpsky’s gotta be a troll. No one is that blind to the facts. I mean, it’s one thing to say that government spends more on research than private industry. It’s wrong, but an understandable mistake. But to go on to assert that private industry does almost NO scientific research crosses the line into lunacy. All you have to do is look around you. Hell, I work for a company that spends about 3 billion dollars a year on pure research. Look at the drug industry - it spends more than the entire federal government research budget, and almost all of it is in ‘pure’ science. Chumpsky seems to think that car companies don’t do basic science. I wonder where he thinks all those new-fangled pollution controls came from? Or the modern materials used in car bodies? Or the supercomputers used to model vehicle dynamics? Was it the government that invented the MRI scanner? Or the artificial heart, or kidney? Was it the government that discovered the electric lightbulb, or the airplane, or made breakthroughs in mining technologies? Was it the government that mapped the human genome, or cloned the first animal? (It was PPL Therapeutics, a private company). Is government responsible for searching for extra-terrestrial life? (The SETI project is privately funded). How about Nobel Prizes? A Nobel prize in physics went to a scientist at Texas Instruments in 2000. The year before, two researchers from Bell labs won. And the year before that, Bell Labs also shared the Nobel in physics. Bell Labs has won 6 Nobels. In 2000 a scientist from DuPont won the Nobel in Chemistry. IBM won a Nobel for the invention of the Scanning Tunneling Microscope. IBM, by the way, employs a lot of particle and solid-state physicists, and they do a ton of research in quantum mechanics and molecular physics as well. A scientist from General Eletric won the Nobel in chemistry in 1932. And of course, GE was founded by Thomas Edison, who was no slouch in the research department himself. Carbon nanotubes were discovered through private research, and now another private company is planning on using them to build an elevator into space. But really, this is pointless. Chumpsky is willfully blind. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/27 "2002-12-23T21:07:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*Oh, I know, I know! Pick me! > > How about atmospheric physics? Does that count? Ford has one of the best atmospheric physics labs in the world. How about materials science? Does that count? Thermodynamics? How about chemistry? Ford employs an awful lot of chemists.\*\* Hmm. You claim that public financing of scientific research amounts to only $72 billion per year, while private financing amounts to $200 billion. It is not quite clear how you arrived at these figures. Does the $200 billion account for all research and _development_? Most of the R&D done at private companies is merely engineering. It shouldn’t really be counted as scientific research, although a very small portion of it could be. Having worked for a major corporation doing what was called “scientific research,” I can tell you that most of it isn’t. Most of it is just fine-tuning the real research that has been done at public expense at universities and national labs. There is a very simple reason for this: research is expensive, and usually unprofitable. You say the $72 billion “includes NASA, the NSF, other research grants, etc.” What about funding for universities, the Department of Energy, national labs, etc. Funding for national labs through the DoE amounts to some $26 billion per year alone. [cite](http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/03budget/) The amount of the NASA budget for scientific research is around $9 billion. [cite](http://www.nasa.gov/budget/budget2003_index.html) Some of the $6 billion for human space flight also counts as scientific research. The NSF budget is $5 billion [cite](http://www.nsf.gov/home/budget/start.htm). Some $51 billion is spent on research and development through the Pentagon system. [cite](http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm) The [National Institute of Health](http://www.nih.gov/news/budgetfy2003/2003NIHpresbudget.htm) recieves some $27 billion. Other publicly funded scientific organizations include the US Civilian Research and Development Foundation and the USDA. These alone put the figure for publicly financed research at well over $100 billion. Then there is also funding for the university system, where a large portion of pure scientific research takes place. This is much more difficult to quantify in terms of public financing for scientific research. How can you place a dollar value on it? For one thing, almost every scientist who works doing scientific research has been a beneficiary of publicly funded education. Federal student aid alone accounts for some [$12 billion](http://www.acenet.edu/washington/appropriations/2001/12december/02.approps.chart.html), a large portion of which goes to train future scientists. So, for example, when Celera hires scientists, they get the benefit of their education without having had invested in it. That is publicly financed training for Celera. Then, much of the basic research is done at universities. Celera could not have existed were it not for the research done at universities. Again, they are the beneficiaries of publicly financed research, even if only indirectly. I don’t have the patience to go through the budget of every state for public funding of higher education. Perhaps somebody knows of a study? I am guessing that public financing of higher education amounts to many tens of billions of dollars. It is only when an avenue of research shows itself to be profitable is it pursued by private industry. Most scientific research is not profitable. The public takes the risks and pays the costs for unprofitable scientific research. Then, when it is shown to profitable it is handed over as a gift to private power. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/28 "2002-12-24T00:02:01Z")
You’re just wrong, Chumpsky. I’ve provided plenty of information about scientific research done by private companies. It’s a myth that companies only engage in engineering and not basic science. Just what is Microsoft getting from the Sloan Sky Survey? They’re helping to fund it, you know. What did Bell Labs have to gain from studying the background radiation in the universe? Anyway, you’re not playing fair. Now you’re trying to classify all private spending as mere ‘engineering’, but you’re widening the scope of government spending on ‘research’ to include education funding for people who might become scientists one day? That’s a pretty transparent distortion of the facts. But if you want to go down the educational funding road, how about we add all the foundations like the Carnegie Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, the Nobel foundation, etc? Because there is a HUGE amount of private funding for post-secondary education. And I speak as someone who went through university in part on a scholarship from Motorola. You can’t win this one, Chumpsky, because the facts aren’t on your side and we’re all smart enough to see through your lame attempts at skewing them. Best to just cut and run. After all, that’s what you usually do after you get nailed to the wall with facts. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/29 "2002-12-24T00:34:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > I don’t have the patience to go through the budget of every state for public funding of higher education. Perhaps somebody knows of a study? I am guessing that public financing of higher education amounts to many tens of billions of dollars. So, how many university students are in scientific programs, and how many are in business, arts, history etc. If you’re going to claim tens of billions of government dollars spent on research through higher education, a breakdown would be nice. Oh, wait, I forgot. You don’t have the patience to back up your claims. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/30 "2002-12-24T00:34:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*You’re just wrong, Chumpsky. I’ve provided plenty of information about scientific research done by private companies. It’s a myth that companies only engage in engineering and not basic science. Just what is Microsoft getting from the Sloan Sky Survey? They’re helping to fund it, you know. What did Bell Labs have to gain from studying the background radiation in the universe? \*\* Great argument you’ve got there Sam: I’m right, you’re wrong. Brilliant. Well, for Microsoft, it’s basically for PR. Since they enjoy a state-enforced monopoly, they can afford to engage in unprofitable enterprises and push the cost onto the consumer. Likewise, as I already explained, for Bell Labs. When AT&T was a state-enforced monopoly, they could afford to do unprofitable scientific research, but once their monopoly was broken up, the labs were slashed. It is pretty generally true that companies tend to engage in activities that are profitable, unless they have the luxury of enjoying a monopoly. Since most scientific research is not profitable, most of the basic scientific research is done at public expense. The public takes the risks in scientific research that may never turn out to be profitable, and private power takes the benefits when something is shown to be profitable. There are all too many examples. Aviation technology, computers, the internet, etc., were all developed at public expense, but once it was determined that they could be profitable, they were handed over as a gift to Boeing, IBM, Microsoft, etc. True, these parasites did take the technology and improve on it, but they never would have existed in the first place had it not been for public financing of scientific research. ---
**Author:** ![J\_String](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce73a5/32.png) [@J\_String](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/J_String)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/31 "2002-12-24T01:09:58Z")
Microsoft enjoys a state-enforced monopoly? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/32 "2002-12-24T01:29:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by J String \* > \*\*Microsoft enjoys a state-enforced monopoly? \*\* In Chumpsky’s world it does. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/33 "2002-12-24T02:00:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by J String \* > \*\*Microsoft enjoys a state-enforced monopoly? \*\* Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/34 "2002-12-24T02:05:20Z")
See? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/35 "2002-12-24T02:29:27Z")
So, **Chumpsky** , how would you classify wind tunnel studies undertaken by the various car companies? Simply “engineering” or would you consider that to be “pure research”? In any case, it _makes sense_ for universities to turn over their discoveries to private corporations for two reasons: 1.) Private companies donate a lot of money to universities (they get tax breaks for that, you know). 2.) I don’t know of any university that is set up to mass produce anything other than students. Oh, and the reason Bell Labs did the study that led to the discovery of the 3-degree background radiation was because they wanted to know where all the interference in their transmissions was coming from. So would that change their discovery from “pure research” to “simple engineering?” ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/36 "2002-12-24T03:00:39Z")
Here’s an interesting [Cato study](http://www.cato.org/dailys/4-11-97.html) that refutes just about everything Chumpsky has said. From the cite: > [@](#): > > When University of Pennsylvania economist Edwin Mansfield studied the 1960-70 behavior of 16 major American oil and chemical companies, he found that all 16 invested in pure science. The more a firm invested in basic science, the more its productivity grew. 16 out of 16. Oil and Chemical companies. Old industry. And THEY are doing ‘basic research’. Here’s more: > [@](#): > > “Current Contents” magazine recently reviewed the institutions that produced the largest number of cited papers in biology, and two of the top seven were private companies: Genentech and Chiron. The others were charitable foundations. One, the Howard Hughes Foundation, is totally private, while the others three (the Salk and Whitehead Institutes and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) do accept some government money. How about that? Of the top 10 biggest producers of research papers in the biological sciences, NONE were purely government funded, and only 3 out of 7 accepted any government money at all. > [@](#): > > That destroys another myth: that only governments will fund scholarship. The rich, as Nietzsche wrote, have a need to give. Only last year David Packard, of Hewlett Packard, left $4 billion to his research foundation. His thousands of philanthropic predecessors include Howard Hughes (whose foundation spent $332 million on research in 1991); W. M. Keck ($95 million); John D. Rockefeller (whose foundation funded both the discovery of DNA as the genetic messenger and the development of penicillin); and Andrew Carnegie. Since then, you can add the biggest charitable fund of all, the [Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation](http://www.gatesfoundation.org/). Chumpsky, I know you think he is Satan, what with being a businessman and all, but that didn’t stop him from donating 100 million dollars to AIDS research last year. But that’s just a drop in the bucket compared to the 5 billion other dollars the foundation is spending. Granted, not all of it is for research, but a good chunk is. Go look at the site and see. Continuing from the Cato report: > [@](#): > > Ordinary people, too, will fund academic research. Witness the great charities such as the American Heart Association ($105 million in 1991) and the American Cancer Society ($94 million). This is a big factor. Average People donate a lot of money to charitable causes, many of which spend the money on pure research. The amount of individual donations to research by average people adds up to well over a billion dollars a year. Then there’s the efficiency aspect. Judging government by how much money it spends is a lousy way to tell if it is doing good. After all, the government spent over a trillion dollars on the ‘war on poverty’, but I still see lots of it. From the article: > [@](#): > > Further, government funding of university science is largely unproductive. When Edwin Mansfield surveyed 76 major American technology firms, he found that only around 3 percent of sales could not have been achieved “without substantial delay, in the absence of recent academic research.” Thus some 97 percent of commercially useful industrial technological development is, in practice, generated by in-house R&D. Academic science is of relatively small economic importance, and by funding it in public universities, governments are largely subsidizing predatory foreign companies. > > Scientists may love government money, and politicians may love the power its expenditure confers upon them, but society is impoverished by the transaction. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/37 "2002-12-24T05:04:14Z")
And [here](http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/bulletin/articles/6-98/study.htm) at the AAAS website is the view from people who are not as freakin’ whacked as the Cato Institute for heaven’s sake. Note the extensive discussion of the views of Vernon Elders who is one of two physicists in Congress and is even a Republican [albeit admittedly a moderate rather than one of the completely crazy ones 😉]. > [@](#): > > In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) stated that highly innovative, far-sighted research with the potential for significant breakthroughs is a critical component of our nation’s research portfolio. National Science Policy Study leader Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI) tempered those remarks by emphasizing that federal investments in basic research are at risk of being insufficiently funded, noting that federal funds are limited and industry has no incentive to invest in long-term research. > > The federal government’s role in funding basic research is irreplaceable, noted Rep. Ehlers. Most economists and science policy experts agree that the federal government is in a unique position to fund basic research. Basic research in fields such as health, agriculture, and defense is considered a public good, with broad benefits that can be widely disseminated. Although industry has increased its investment in research and development (R&D) over the years, basic research would not receive the attention it requires if left solely to the private sector, a fact pointed out by President Truman’s science advisor, Vannevar Bush, over 50 years ago. > > … > > Much of the basic research conducted by private industry is primarily to fill in the gaps within broader programs of applied research aimed at new product development, said Conrades. Industry has specific product-directed goals and since basic research is essentially non-commercial in nature, it will not receive the attention it requires if left to industry. **In 1997, industry spent over $130 billion on R&D, but less than 10 percent of these funds were spent on basic research. Industry’s investment is only one-quarter of the total U.S. basic research effort, according to a recent AAAS report.** [Bolding mine.] So, who do we trust, a paid hack from the Cato Institute or a report from AAAS…Hmmm, that’s a tough choice! (Although I must admit that I am always amazed to find out just how deceitful these folks from Cato really are when you look into their claims…Geez! Oh, and in case you were curious, Cato was the #2 cited think tank in year 2000 by the “liberal” media.] **Sam** , you know if you had been reasonable and just tried to argue that industry has done important R&D…even some very good basic science in the past (although unfortunately the trend has been away from funding the more basic research at least in the physical sciences), then I may simply have joined in in saying that **Chumpsky** is being too strident in claiming that industry doesn’t do some important research. But your distortion of the facts to read that basically all important research is done by industry is so ludicruous that, while the truth lies someone in between your two extremes, I think that **Chumpsky** is closer to reality than you are. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/38 "2002-12-24T06:06:35Z")
So, here for people who want some objective sources on industry and government funding of research, is some links to various other stuff on the AAAS website: [http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guitotal.htm](http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guitotal.htm) [http://www.aaas.org/spp/yearbook/](http://www.aaas.org/spp/yearbook/) A few comments: the graphs on the first cite show that industry funds about 70% (trying to estimate the numbers off the graph) of all R&D in the U.S. (Interestingly, it was more like 50-50 until the mid 80s or so.) When one turns to what is defined as basic research, however, that number drops to about 1/3 of the funding, with the federal government up at about 1/2 and the rest accounted for by all other sources (state and local governments, non-profits, and college’s and university’s own funds). As an example of what one can glean from the second cite, here is a quote from Chapter 19 of the 1999 AAAS Science and Technology Yearbook: > [@](#): > > Vannevar Bush clearly recognized that applications of research results often appear many years after the work is started and that there is no certainty as to which of the many national needs will benefit from this work. He also observed that “basic research is essentially non-commercial in nature. It will not receive the attention it requires if left to industry.” Today this concept is recognized as a lack of “appropriability.” Because of the long-term nature of research and the uncertainties in predicting its practical applications, a company cannot be certain that investment in research will result in a competitive advantage in the worldwide marketplace. Indeed, the increase in global competition has exacerbated the “appropriability” issue. It consequently has increased the need for government support of research. Happy reading! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/39 "2002-12-24T06:14:09Z")
None of that contradicts what I was saying. I said that total R&D spending in 2000 was 200 billion private, 72 billion government. I was presenting the CATO study as a counterpoint to Chumpsky. My own position is more moderate - I don’t have a big problem with the amount of government funding for basic science. In fact, it should probably be increased. ---
**Author:** ![perspective](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f475e1/32.png) [@perspective](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/perspective)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392/40 "2002-12-24T06:14:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meta-Gumble \* > \*\*…I think the law has to take into account the potential abuse of ethics by the current configuration dominant in western socio-political regimes (ie UK and America…). \*\* I’d really like to hear more about these potential abuses and what the laws might be like. Without that, there doesn’t seem to be much to argue about. Why _exactly_ do you consider the Human Genome Project a fiasco, and what would you propose to do? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-and-the-free-market/144392.md?page=3)