Measuring the tectonic shifts in public-private power and influence

Private funding of research and development has taken a much larger role in the United States over the decades. The values inherent in this shift reflect a shift in motivations as well. While pre-World War II research was much more private, Vannevar Bush and Franklin D. Roosevelt ushered in an era of post-war, government funded research that would last for decades. The National Science Foundation (NSF) may have been a bastardized hybrid of Bush’s vision, but it served its purpose well for many years. Still, the public value in placing such responsibility in such an organization could have been hotly debated by the populace for years, but it was not. Even today, amid budget cutting nightmare scenarios, research funding is not coming under the same public/political scrutiny as other pieces of public expenditures. Why is that?

The shift toward privatization is one of the reasons for this shift in public sentiment. While the government may still claim to be at the wheel of the spending ship, it is actually the populace and private industry who are the pilots charting the course and the crew working the ship. One model that has worked well over time is that of privatizing profits and socializing the risks. As Sheila Jasanoff might say, this would be a conversation about “legitimacy and meaning”. Who gets to call the shots and who takes responsibility when things go wrong?

This very question plays out in other discussions of privatization. Take the military contracting company Blackwater, for example. Their cavalier treatment of civilians in Middle Eastern war zones has kept American diplomats awake at night and drinking lots of tea during the day to patch things up with the locals. It’s an example of privatizing the profit and socializing the risk.

When private companies are allowed to take out patents on new discoveries, we are privatizing profit. When national or international governments cover the cost of governance of new technologies we are socializing the risk. Private companies may have trade groups and some small amount of self- governance, but generally it is the large governments who set up commissions and foundations to study the risk of new technologies. So where does the public voice come in? How do we decide who calls the shots and who takes the fall?

Over the decades since World War II, the United States has fostered a partnership between private and public institutions with standards set up for examining risk and distributing profits in order to promote scientific breakthroughs. The public and other institutional actors – ie. religions - have had varying degrees of influence in the decision making process, but the shift in power has become accepted over time. As we frame and resolve these philosophical questions, we have come to an accord. Both private and public interests co-produce scientific knowledge and technology within the context of society. While it may be an uncomfortable and contentious peace at times, it is a workable dynamic system, nonetheless. The fact that we recognize and debate the power shift between public and private funding of research and development shows that the system itself is healthy.