Sex, Science And Profits Kindle Edition

The author asks what is science, but he never actually comes up with a definition, except maybe to tell us that there is no difference between pure science and applied science. Nevertheless, he ends up equating science with whatever companies do as part of their R&D. And there lies his thesis: there is no need for public science funding because individuals and companies will do R&D just to "stay in business". He points to some evidence, such as the fact that richer countries spend more, proportionally, on R&D, irrespective of government funding. Thus, Kealey's thesis is simple and it seems to fit the facts. At the end of the book, the author had me convinced.

It is not entirely clear, however, why government funding for science would be a bad thing in this context. Kealey points to some government waste (e.g., the famous Japanese AI research project), and he could have collected more examples, but the reader is hardly shocked to learn that governments can be inefficient. Would Kealey also acknowledge that large corporations can be equally wasteful at times?

As another quasi-definition, he equates science with the "invisible college". He is trying to convey the idea that science is like a private club... and hence science is more of a private good that a public good. The key argument supporting this thesis is that research papers are unusable without the tacit knowledge that researchers unavoidably fail to include. This is certainly true broadly speaking. However, he fails to acknowledge that there are countless examples of breakthroughs coming from "outsiders" (people who would not belong any "invisible college"). In any case, I found this general line of discussion rather pointless... as the distinction between private and public good is a coarse abstraction. It is simply not useful to apply this language to science. It seems to me that it suffices to point out that science gets funded even when government withdraw funding. There is no need of this extra theory.

The book is filled with interesting facts and references. However, I am quite certain to have read the same argument 3 times, a few pages apart. Thus, the book could have used better editing.

I can't help but to compare this book with Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (which appeared roughly a year later). I think that Ridley's book and thesis is stronger. He makes roughly the same point, but he goes further, explaining why leaving out science to governments can be dangerous.

Still, I give this book, the highest possible rating because I think that anyone interested in science should read it.

Note: the title and cover were badly chosen. This book deserved better.

If you have the usual statist views of how science succeeds, you need to challenge yourself with Kealey, a scientist and academic administrator who knows what he's talking about, and what you don't.

You want a 'deep book'? This is deep; it a) analyzes precisely why the funding of science is done more efficiently from private funding and by private institutions, b) describes in detail the de facto development of a 'knowledge marketplace' that only knowledgeable researchers can utilize, c) gives many concrete examples which illustrate how private individuals and institutions got better scientific or technological results for a fraction of the cost, and d) combs the literature for relevant academic results. All in all, one of the best books ever written on why a free society does science better than a coercive one.

If you ever had anything to do with innovation, you would now that Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) laid the philosophical foundations that to this day define our thinking on how innovation should be driven and funded. Kealey, Vice-Chancellor at Buckingham University in the UK convincingly demonstrates that Bacon was wrong and how we will get countries to become more innovative. The sex in the title refers to the one main stream of Darwinian theory, sexual selection, and the profit, to the other Darwinian force, natural selection. According to Kealey government and academic programs are driven by sexual selection, more show off than real results. The private sector on the other hand, grapple with real problems to be solved, are seeking competitiveness (natural selection!) and clear the way for science eventually to catch up. In the Baconian view science, state funded came first and is subsequently applied to technological issues. You should read the book only if it is for the way in which Kealey shows Bacon's interpretation of Prince Henry, The Navigator be wrong. This is a book that should be required reading for government officials that attempt to manage innovation and also by academics. I have used this book to great effect in consultation with a client in the process of establishing a centre for excellence.