What is the state's obligation to sponsor science?

[Lanny]

So I stumbled on this article somehow:

http://news.sciencemag.org/policy/2014/10/battle-between-nsf-and-house-science-committee-escalates-how-did-it-get-bad

and it got me thinking. I suspect most people will side with the NSF on this particular issue since it seems like a pretty obvious political construction on the House's part. On thing that interested me was Smith's repeated use of science being "in the nation's interests", and in particular how he called attention to research conducted overseas. The question we then need to ask is if the state has an obligation to fund (or perhaps to not fund) and pursue scientific research in the first place, and then if the same principal applies when the funding state is not the only, primary, or even included as a member of those benefited by potential research.

I'm of the opinion that if the expected result of research has a net greater value of the cost of research, to anyone and not just the funding state, then it has a prima facie obligation to pursue that research at very least as an extension of its humanitarian efforts. The result seems counterintuitive with respect to the history of american politics yet unavoidable. If we accept the utilitarian premise of impartiality I can't see a way to get from that to states (which are human constructions, composed of humans) having a moral priority given to self-interests. If you're an egoist them maybe you think your state should work in your interest, but you also want everyone else's state to work in your interest too, so it seems like you're committed to my position or, at least, to remaining mute on the subject all together.

[inb4bowden]

It pisses me off that scientists aren't better funded. They're basically apolitical and as such can be manipulated easily. Scientists literally allowed a man to travel to a lunar system for no reason other than to piss of the humans with a different political system. Canada's got so much fucking uranium we literally don't know what to do with it, if we had some nuclear scientists who were certainly loyal to Canada and not the US we'd be laughing, especially if we were able to dispose of it relatively safely.

 Anyways, the problem is science can be a big money pit like that thing they built before the Large Hadron collider in the states in like Delaware or somewhere shitty with cows, a particle accelerator or something, cost billions and didn't do shit. In that way it's a coin toss whether or not something's gonna be fruitful. If it is, fucking right but if it's not you look like idiots.

[Lanny]

Yeah, it seems like there are a lot of factors that conspire to make scientific research a politically infeasible, or at least risky, endeavor. "Unsuccessful" research has the potential to sink a political career, even when research is successful in the real sense that it disproves a hypothesis but doesn't yield "success" in the folk understanding of science. There's also a range of sciences that have at least enough rigor to be worth pursuing, generally under the umbrella of "social science", where any result is considered common sense (even if its negation is also common sense) that are prime targets for "why are we paying scientists to tell us what we already know" types of objections. Poor scientific literacy means most of the voting population's ability to appreciate the output of science comes in whatever gets bolted onto their phone next time they upgrade.

[Dionysus]

The state doesn't have an obligation to do anything, so saying what it should or shouldn't do is an exercise in impotence. I think that obviously any state with a sense of self preservation that extends more than 20 years would be crazy not to be funding the sciences, particularly environmental sciences, but like you said, if taking a risk with research can jeopardize a politicians career, then it immediately puts them at a cross purpose with funding anything that doesn't provide a return. Plus the average asshole can barely stand having to contribute tax's at all, let alone for esoteric scientific research that may or may not be a waste of time.

[Lanny]

I guess a better phrasing would have been "should the state sponsor science", but that brings with it a lot of baggage as to where we can come up with normative claims.

[Evan]

State can use powered armor instead of sticks to conquer enemies of the state with great many honour, bows.