Privatizing Science: The way forward?

I recently read a wonderful article on the increasing privatisation of science in America. Here in the UK Science is still seen as a public good, something to be handled properly by the government. To suggest privatisation is to suggest the spectre of Thatcherism. It conjures image of shady businessmen funding science that supports their blood-thirsty desire for ever increasing profits and to hell with the noble vision of disinterested science.

It is no secret, however, that even the most viable sciences are seeing their funding slashed. The government is having to deal with huge debt and torn between the idea of raising taxes significantly or cutting spending they chose to cut spending. We can debate the merits of austerity vs. public spending another time but either way funding has to come from somewhere.

This article points out that wealthy individuals, keen to shake off their miserly image and re-establish their image as philanthropists and agents of the public good, are starting to fund science in their own image.

Psychology has not seen this influx of private funding yet, seen as less marketable and still socially viable by the government, it has remained relatively immune - but it too has seen it’s funding slashed. So here is the question? would privately funded psychology be viable? (by that I mean both in the public good AND profitable for the donors?)

You would be mistaken for thinking that psychology is a relatively pure and abstract science. Just peruse the latest journals and you’ll see articles like: “Curtailing Chimpanzee Exploitation”, “Charting the Islands of Memory”, and “CREB3L1 Regulates Arginine Vasopressin Expression”. Fascinating, yes. Interesting (to a psychologist), yes. Useful to the man on the street? errmmm not so much.

You could argue that science isn’t supposed to be useful to the man on the street. It’s an esoteric subject, something to be preserved for it’s own sake. Again we could argue what the proper role of science is to society, but we still have a huge problem; society isn’t listening. People want more bang for their buck. They want to know that their taxes are going to something worthwhile and, as has been shown in the Western world recently, will pull that funding (by voting for austerity), if they feel it isn’t measuring up. So what’s to be done?

Well first of all, lets remember that psychology, despite the best efforts of pundits, isn’t ALL about neuroscience. It has it’s place, to be sure, but Neuroscience is but one aspect of human psychology. My own work at the Wales Centre for Behaviour Change (check out our new website!) involves taking psychology from the academy in it’s raw, esoteric form and making it work for the people. We help with all sorts of issues from safety in the workplace, to improving staff well-being and everything in between. We work with businesses to help them solve the problems they are facing.

This is a real, social benefit. We do research, but we also apply. We are attempting to bridge the gap between ivory tower and office, it’s not an easy task and fraught with dangers, but the point is we are doing it. Psychology, especially behavioural psychology, is a relatively untapped resource for the business owner.

There is, however, resistance. Seen as selling out, or profiteering, psychologists who do overly sell themselves can come under fire for doing so. I am incredibly lucky to work with people both in my team and in my department who understand the necessity of this fact and who willingly engage with the external world to enrich both our research and their business.

The problem is that our funding is hard to come by. Research councils are concerned with a certain type of science and more often than not that science isn’t about helping a business increase their profit margin. This is where privately-funded research can come to the fore. By funding the sort of research that has real world applicability we can both preserve the pure-research side of our work and still maintain viability and connection with the outside world.

I wager there will always be a desire and need for government funded research, but a 21st century approach to science will, in my opinion, involve the marrying of both private interests for the sort of work that applies directly to real world problems, and government funding for the blue sky thinking.