Is for-profit funding of research unethical?

December 31, 2007

I had a conversation today with a very bright individual just about to complete his PHD in computer science — he has inspired me to ask this important question. I was quite surprised to hear him describe his philosophical opposition to private funding for research. I couldn’t believe it. Ever? Is this common?

He went on and on about how corporations today are only interested in research that could potentially result in a commercially viable product and how he’s not interested in the money and that he would happily accept a nominal salary in exchange for the freedom to continue whatever research he wishes to pursue… He arrived at this position after being exposed to the pharmaceutical industry and being so disgusted with their ethics that he determined to avoid cooperation with any corporation motivated by potential profits.

I interjected that it can’t possibly in every circumstance be more ethical for him to lobby the government to steal my money to fund his research, given that I have no choice in the matter, when money is available from willing contributors… but I think that logic was lost on him. I can understand a desire to pursue basic research that most corporations wouldn’t be interested in funding, but why all the absolutist rhetoric? Is it unethical to take money from an organization that intends to profit from your research? Is profit unethical? Where do you think government revenues come from?

He did express some admiration for Microsoft because they give researchers money to do with whatever they please, which began a side discussion about Microsoft which I will leave for another day… but the point is he wants indefinite no-strings-attached funding with no direction or accountability, regardless of how that money is raised.

I had a flood of objections, I didn’t know where to begin. What’s wrong with developing products? Will you still be willing to accept that tiny salary when you get married and have kids? Of course I don’t believe a word of it, but let’s assume he is sincere. If he wants to pursue research for the public interest and is willing to accept a lesser salary, good for him. Maybe he will be responsible and accomplish great things — but how many losers do I need to subsidize for every genius?

I admire his honorable intentions and I believe public funding of some research may be reasonable, but I sincerely hope he doesn’t convince every other like minded researcher to follow his lead. I absolutely disagree with his disengagement policy. I think the world needs more good people in positions of influence within major corporations, not less. It’s not as though abdicating your role in a private corporation will cause the corporation to give up control over its resources. The means of production exist and if they aren’t controlled by ethical people they will by default be controlled by unethical people.

Over time a properly functioning market will weed out the good from the bad, but at what cost in the interim? How is it better for any society to keep its most responsible citizens buried in relative poverty and debt, enslaved to the whims of various political agendas and their financiers? It doesn’t make sense to me.

The core reason for my ambition is also to achieve independence from the influences and demands of others, in that we both have the same objective. Except, he wants to wag his finger while I create profitable corporations only to mandate the coercive arm of government steal my hard earned money by force to fund his miscellaneous activities for another year.

Am I missing something?