SCIENCE, THE ENDLESS FRONTIER AT SEVENTY-FIVE

SCIENCE, THE ENDLESS FRONTIER AT SEVENTY-FIVE

PUBLIC VALUE SCIENCE

In an increasingly unequal society, America's science policies are a regressive force. They need to be refocused on creating benefits for all people.

Why should the United States government support science? That question was apparently settled seventy-five years ago by Vannevar Bush in Science, the Endless Frontier: "Since health, well-being, and security are proper concerns of Government, scientific progress is, and must be, of vital interest to Government. Without scientific progress the national health would deteriorate; without scientific progress we could not hope for improvement in our standard of living or for an increased number of jobs for our citizens; and without scientific progress we could not have maintained our liberties against tyranny."

Having dispensed with the question of why, all that remained was for policy-makers to decide, how much? Even at the dawn of modern science policy, costs and funding needs were at the center of deliberations. Though rarely discussed anymore, Endless Frontier did give specific attention to the question of how much. The proposed amounts seem, by today's standards, modest: "It is estimated that an adequate program for Federal support of basic research in the colleges, universities, and research institutes and for financing important applied research in the public interest, will cost about ten million dollars at the outset and may rise to about fifty million dollars annually when fully underway at the end of perhaps five years."

In today's dollars, fifty million dollars translates to about five hundred thirty-five million dollars, or less than two percent of what the federal government actually spent for basic research in twenty eighteen. One way to look at the legacy of Endless Frontier is that by answering the why question so convincingly, it logically followed that the how much question could always be answered simply by "more."

In practice, however, the why question continues to seem so self-evident because it fails to consider a third question, who? As in, who benefits from this massive federal investment in research, and who does not? The question of who was also seemingly answered by Endless Frontier, which not only offered full employment as a major goal for expanded research but also embraced "the sound democratic principle that there should be no favored classes or special privilege."

But I argue that this principle has now been soundly falsified. In an economic environment characterized by growth but also by extreme inequality, science and technology not only reinforce inequality but also, in some instances, help widen the gap. Science and technology can be a regressive factor in the economy. Thus, it is time to rethink the economic equation justifying government support for science not just in terms of why and how much, but also in terms of who.

What logic supports my claim that under conditions of conspicuous inequality, science and technology research is often a regressive force? Simple: except in the case of the most basic of basic research (such as exploration of other galaxies), effects are never randomly distributed. Both the direct and indirect effects of science and technology tend to differentially affect citizens according to their socioeconomic power and purchasing power.

First, when research accomplishes its goals of creating totally new technologies and sectors of the economy, the costs of such "creative destruction" are disproportionately borne by those who are already less able to thrive in a highly competitive and unequal society. Second, when research and technology lead to the proliferation of new firms or, especially, to rises in the value of large, established firms, the stock market rewards value, and the people holding stocks benefit. Those who do not own stocks (about forty-five percent of Americans) benefit either indirectly or not at all. Third, research leads to new services and products, many of which themselves become important contributors to economic and social well-being. When

Both the direct and indirect effects of science and technology tend to differentially affect citizens according to their socioeconomic power and purchasing power.

innovative goods come to market they may be priced beyond the ability of lower-income families to enjoy the goods or the benefits that come with them. By skewing economic benefit and also consumption opportunity toward more affluent citizens, the effects of research and technology, in an economy characterized by extensive inequality, will be regressive.

But it doesn't have to be this way. Here I outline an alternative rationale for publicly funded science, what I call "public value science," and offer some steps the nation might take to redo its social contract for public support of science.

Economic inequality: a sketch

US income inequality is at its highest level since the Census Bureau began tracking it more than fifty years ago. The top ten percent of citizens now have more than nine times as much income as the bottom ninety percent. A recent analysis by the economists Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez showed that the bottom fifty percent of the population has made gains in income since nineteen seventy. Using constant dollars, the family who in nineteen seventy had nineteen thousand six hundred forty dollars in income had twenty-seven thousand six hundred forty-two dollars in twenty eighteen, an increase of about twenty-nine percent. This amount of growth contrasts sharply with higher-income strata during the same period:

The top ten percent of the population saw their average income more than double.

The top one point zero percent enjoyed a threefold increase in income.

The top zero point one percent now has five times as much wealth.

The wealthiest Americans, the one in ten thousand, saw their income rise from an average of over three million five hundred thousand dollars to more than twenty-four million dollars, an increase of nearly seven hundred percent.

A favorite political economy morality tale told on the campaign trail, by Bernie Sanders especially, is that the three richest people in the United States now own as much wealth (two hundred forty-nine billion dollars) as the bottom half of the population (two hundred forty-five billion dollars). But this problem is more than a political debating point. The Gini index has long been used as a measure of income dispersion and inequality. In nineteen eighty, the US Gini index was thirty-four point six-higher than all measured countries in Europe (a higher number indicates more inequality), and higher than Canada (twenty-eight point four) and the United Kingdom (twenty-six point seven), but not as high nations in Central or South America or most nations in the developing world. For the most recent data, twenty eighteen, the US figure rose to forty-eight point five. US

inequality peers now include China, Mexico, and Rwanda. Tax cuts that the United States adopted in twenty seventeen, including the elimination of capital gains tax and a one-third cut in corporate tax rates, are likely to exacerbate these trends.