The Political Economy of American
Science
 

Alex Dajkovic
 
1. The aims of the scientific endeavor are straightforward:
theoretical explication of the natural world.  Science is one
expression of a basic human yearning for understanding as old as
consciousness, seminal indications of its existence being found
in the earliest civilizations.  Intellectual progress, however,
coalesced in Europe in the period preceding the Enlightenment and
gave rise to a new way of studying the cosmos.  The Scientific
Revolution, as this intellectual leap has been termed, has had
mixed effects.  On the one hand, scientific achievement has
advanced in many dimensions, giving us a fresh appreciation of
the depth of reality in which we take part and which we are
co-constructing.  It informs us of the immense evolutionary
distance traversed by the universe from the primordial explosion
till today.  And it raises consciousness to a higher level of
understanding, laying the material as well as spiritual
foundations for a much more humane and rational social
existence.  On the other hand, the technological applications of
some scientific achievements have produced new instruments of
violence and destruction, of control and manipulation, which, if
not sharply diverted from their present course, seriously
threaten to destroy humankind itself. 

2. The question that arises, then, concerns the factors that
determine which aspects of science will prevail in a given
historical situation.  Since the nature of science itself doesn't
offer an illuminating insight, we have to look at the system
under which science operates, analyze its structure, and discern
its logic of functioning.  Our final goal is to assign proper
weight to various institutional factors separate from the logic
of science itself.

3. The United States, arguably the most scientifically advanced
state in recorded history, provides an example.  American
scientific endeavor took its present form during World War II,
when the federal government began funding science in the service
of war.  The commercial potential of that arrangement was
immediately recognized and seized upon by the policy makers.  The
now famous Vannevar Bush Report to Franklin D. Roosevelt,
"Science: The Endless Frontier," established the systemic
parameters that remain in place to this day.  It spells out the
thinking as follows: "new products, new industries, and more jobs
require continuous additions to knowledge of Nature and
application of that knowledge to practical purposes" including
"new and improved weapons."  The purpose of science, under this
system, became production of knowledge of the natural world which
can subsequently be applied towards development of technologies
by the private sector.

4. At the same time it was also recognized that "this essential,
new knowledge can be obtained only through basic scientific
research."  Considering that the private sector, composed of
corporate conglomerates of concentrated economic power, is driven
by a singular logic of profit, it cannot be expected to fund an
enterprise whose only objective is to understand Nature.  And,
predictably, it doesn't.  The burden of funding basic research
falls to the public.  Various government agencies (National
Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, etc.) fund
individual academic researchers at universities, where the
preponderance of basic research is conducted.  In the event that
knowledge demonstrates potential for a commercial application, it
is immediately transferred from the public to the private domain
through the patent system. 

5. The private sector subsequently conducts the final phases of
research and product development which are least expensive and
scientifically demanding.  Through tax deductions, the public
subsidizes even this phase, so that ultimately, the entire cost
of new product development is socialized, while the profit is
privatized.  Throughout the last half century, this basic
structure of the political economy of American science has
remained the same. 

6. In 1980, public policy commitment to the commercial
application of science was reaffirmed by laws that were enacted
to improve the competitiveness of American products on the world
market.  This was done because, as one recent report from the
National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, "the industrialized
world had largely recovered from the effects of World War II and
key Asian nations were devising new approaches to industrial
production."  These "increasing challenges from competition
abroad--in markets for traditional goods as well as a growing
list of goods based on advanced technological capabilities--
raised new questions regarding the role the federal government 
should play in assisting US industry to develop and use new technology for competitive purposes." 

7. Answers to these questions concerning the competitiveness of
American industrial products on the world market can be found in
the legislation of the period.  The report continues: "The
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 opened the
federal laboratories to industry, making available not only
specialized and unique facilities, but also opportunities for R&D
partnerships with joint funding and the use of federally
developed technology for profit making ventures.  That same year,
Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act, which conferred ownership of
patent rights on universities, small businesses, and nonprofit
organizations, thus providing a strong incentive for commercial
development.  In 1984, the National Cooperative Research Act
amended the antitrust statutes to facilitate cooperative R&D
between competing firms."

8. The guiding principles of policy, however, have remained the
same since the Vannevar Bush report: the role of the government
is to place science in the service of commerce, to facilitate
privatization and commercialization of publicly funded
knowledge as soon as it demonstrates profit-generating
potential.  The process, called "technology transfer," has become
institutionalized in most universities, which now have technology
transfer offices for this purpose.  If publicly funded basic
research at a university yields potentially profitable results,
the university is granted a patent which is then sold to the
private sector.  A recent study found that "73% of the applicants
for US patents listed publicly funded research as part or all
of the foundation upon which their new, potentially patentable
findings were based."

9. The private sector thus gains a monopoly on a given product. 
The public subsequently pays monopolistic prices despite the fact
that the research that led to product development was publicly
funded.  This is a hallmark of the current American system:
because basic research is risky, it is conducted at public
expense.  Once the certainty of profit arises out of scientific
knowledge, the knowledge is immediately privatized.

10. There are many concrete examples of this system's
functioning, but, one that is particularly egregious is the case
of HIV drugs, protease inhibitors.  They are the first example of
what has become known as rational drug design.  In the past,
pharmaceuticals were discovered either serendipitously or by
testing large random libraries of chemicals for potential
usefulness.  However, with advances in structural biology--again
wholly publicly funded--scientists were able to determine the
structure of the HIV enzyme protease down to atomic detail and to
design chemicals, specifically and rationally, to inhibit the
action of the enzyme.  The total cost of determining the atomic
structure of protease is not easy to ascertain, but a low
estimate lies in the range of tens of millions of dollars when
the entirety of research that went into its production is
considered.  The research was exclusively publicly funded.  The
final phases of drug development were conducted by pharmaceutical
companies, which subsequently developed effective drugs and
patented them. 

11. Currently there are several protease inhibitors on the market
and an average person with HIV pays in the vicinity of $10,000
for a year's supply.  These drugs are prohibitively
expensive for many uninsured patients, who suffer unnecessarily
and die prematurely from the disease.  Perhaps the most
illuminating fact demonstrating the monopolistic nature of
pricing pharmaceuticals in the United States comes from a recent
comparative study by Medicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without
Borders).  They found that "the minimum price of AIDS drugs in
the countries studied [was] on average 82% less than the US
price."  From this it is clear that, absent public policy
constraints, the corporate sector sets prices to extract maximum
profits from a given market with no regard for human life and
well-being. 

12. Another illustrative example is the much discussed human
genome project.  Putting its philosophical significance aside,
let's look at the political and economic parameters.  The human
genome project comes at an advanced phase in our understanding of
molecular biological phenomena, and it is founded on
scientifically solid ground due to decades of research that was
publicly funded.  Most of the actual sequencing work has been
conducted at universities and was also subsidized by the public. 
Nevertheless, the private sector has seized upon the profit
potential of this expansion of knowledge and has been applying
for patents on various possible applications of our genes. 
Again, putting aside the ethical implications, the economic
factors alone are sufficiently disturbing.  The private sector
has monopolistic possession of a particular domain of the natural
world (which also happens to reside in each and every one of
us).  It was discovered by the use of public funds and its
exploitation is founded on a scientific understanding also gained
by means of public resources.  In accordance with the system's
logic of functioning, the public is disposed to pay monopolistic
prices for applications of this scientific knowledge, as in the
past, despite its indispensable original investment in scientific
discovery and its application.

13. These are just two examples of a systemic logic that is
invariant to a very close approximation.

14. Even the funding priorities of the federal government reflect
the prevailing systemic logic which is singularly commercial. 
Take the current president's latest proposal for boosting
research funding.  A 15% increase in funding is proposed, but
only for National Institutes of Health which funds biological
research.  The reasons seem straightforward: the most obvious
potential for profit resides in the fruitful biological sciences,
whose discoveries can be quickly commercialized through
technology transfer to the nascent biotech industry.  Other
domains of natural inquiry are not deemed as important, not
surprisingly, since the primary aim of science under the current
system is not discovery of knowledge for appreciation of the
Beauty of Nature, but rather discovery of foundational principles
that can be used to generate profit for the private sector.  The
scientific research agenda is driven not by scientific curiosity
or a desire to deepen our understanding of the cosmos but by a
singularly commercial logic of profit. 

15. Another feature of the system, established after World War
II, concerns educational policy.  The Government sets educational
policy in order to satisfy private interests: a sufficient supply
of highly trained labor, and an educational system which extracts
a significant amount of labor in the process of education
itself.  In accordance with systemic logic, the public funds
education as well. 

16. Science education, especially on the graduate level, is
inextricably linked with research.  Graduate students and
post-docs carry out the bulk of the actual research in the
sciences.  They are the most productive and the most innovative
component of the research enterprise, and have been recognized as
such for a long time.  A recent report to Congress by the House
Committee on Science acknowledges that "students and
post-doctoral researchers are responsible for actually performing
much of the federally funded research done in universities" and
that they are "a key component of the overall research
enterprise."  Thus, the report continues, "the potential exists
for the student's graduate experience to be dominated by the
faculty member's need to generate publishable research
results--and not the student's own scientific and professional
development."  Furthermore, the conditions under which graduate
students work are exploitative.  They are required to put in long
hours and give up external commitments, including family.  They
are often exposed to hazardous chemicals, such as radioactive
materials and various organic solvents, and complaints are
generally met with disdainful dismissal.

17. As is evident, science education is also subordinated to the
logic governing the overall system, which is, as we have seen,
exclusively defined by the imperatives of profit.  Since
extraction of labor is one of the key aspects of science
education, it is not surprising that the average length of study,
the number of PhD's granted, and the number of graduate programs
has increased with the increase in the demand for labor in the
biomedical sciences, as they have shown the potential to generate
profitable knowledge.  The resulting growth in the total number
of PhD's granted causes an oversupply of highly trained
scientists, who are unable to find faculty posts and now spend an
average of five to seven years in post-doctoral positions.  While
they were originally meant for transient training following
graduate study, post-doctoral positions are now becoming a way of
life for many scientists.  Generally, the pay is barely
sufficient for subsistence, and the benefits post-docs receive
vary greatly but are usually very modest.  Some universities
don't even consider them employees: they are forced to pay fees
and they have few or no labor rights.  Others regard them as
employees, but give them few or no benefits. 

18. The singular logic driving policy pays little regard to the
needs of young scientists, many of whom spend years in
post-doctoral positions with no job security and limited
benefits.  The dissatisfaction of young scientists with their
educational experience has doubled in the last 20 years,
according to a study by The American Society for Cell Biology. 
Where, in the 1970's, only 16% of PhD level scientists reported
that they would "probably" or "definitely" not pursue their
doctoral degrees if they had to do it all over again, the number
today is double: 31%.  The authors of the study observe "that
although the science itself may be thriving, it is because the
scientific establishment is all too willing to compromise the
careers of its students and post-docs."  This observation, again,
is consistent with the prevailing logic of the dominance of
profit. 

19. As can be seen, the current structure of the American
scientific endeavor provides for sharp asymmetries in the
distribution of costs and benefits associated with science.  On
the one hand, the public subsidizes the costs of basic scientific
research and, through tax deductions, the costs of applied
research and product development by the private sector.  Public
policy is mobilized to assure that the educational system favors
commercial interests by extracting a significant amount of labor
from students in training, but little regard is paid to the needs
of young scientists themselves.  On the other hand, the private
sector secures almost all the benefits of scientific research,
through privatization of potentially profitable knowledge by
means of the patent system.  The patents guarantee monopolies on
developed products and the public is additionally required to
subsidize the profits of the private sector. 

20. Because the private sector is driven by the logic of profit,
it is predictable that the application of scientific knowledge,
when allocated exclusively to the private sector, will be
subordinated to the same logic.   The use of science to destroy
and dominate Nature and humans is perverse, but is rationalized
as productive so long as it benefits the private sector.  This
extreme structural disparity in the distribution of benefits of
science has caused some observers to assign inherently
undemocratic properties to science itself.  But, as this short
analysis hopefully demonstrates, a much more instructive approach
to the original question is to look at the structures of the
system in which science operates and to examine its logic of
functioning.

21. Science has much to offer humanity--a deep appreciation and
an understanding of Nature, along with a respect for the role
humans play in co-constructing the cosmos.  For science to be
liberated from the abuses of the corporate sector, systemic
changes are necessary, changes that can only be initiated by an
informed public.  The alternative offers little in the way of
hope for a human planetary future. 
 

Alex Dajkovic (alexineurope@yahoo.com) is a graduate student at
University of Kansas Medical Center.


 
 
 

 


 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 


 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 


 
 

Return to Table of Contents