Michelle Dang

And it's not just Andrew's work that finds this. In fact, one non-partisan think tank concluded that, quote, virtually every scholarly study examining the issue finds the same thing. Although the bang for your buck that you get from investing in science changes depending on the studies. Now, this isn't to say that every single research project is going to launch a new company for Elon Musk.

And it's not just Andrew's work that finds this. In fact, one non-partisan think tank concluded that, quote, virtually every scholarly study examining the issue finds the same thing. Although the bang for your buck that you get from investing in science changes depending on the studies. Now, this isn't to say that every single research project is going to launch a new company for Elon Musk.

But it does tell us that however we've been funding science, it is to some extent boosting the economy. It's also been estimated that for every dollar spent on the National Weather Service, which has also recently had budget cuts, we get back about $74.

But it does tell us that however we've been funding science, it is to some extent boosting the economy. It's also been estimated that for every dollar spent on the National Weather Service, which has also recently had budget cuts, we get back about $74.

NOAA's budget is just under $7 billion, or at least it was, and the improvements it's made in predicting hurricanes has been estimated to save us about $5 billion every time there's a large hurricane.

NOAA's budget is just under $7 billion, or at least it was, and the improvements it's made in predicting hurricanes has been estimated to save us about $5 billion every time there's a large hurricane.

Andrew says that the numbers you see for investing in science are better than anything else the government could be doing, better than investing in infrastructure even, which is why it's hard to understand the White House's proposed budget for next year. It would slash the National Science Foundation by more than 50% and the NIH's budget by 40%.

Andrew says that the numbers you see for investing in science are better than anything else the government could be doing, better than investing in infrastructure even, which is why it's hard to understand the White House's proposed budget for next year. It would slash the National Science Foundation by more than 50% and the NIH's budget by 40%.

Now, some folks say that without this government funding, things are actually going to get better because the private sector and the free market can now do more efficient research. Andrew says that he hears this kind of thing all the time.

Now, some folks say that without this government funding, things are actually going to get better because the private sector and the free market can now do more efficient research. Andrew says that he hears this kind of thing all the time.

Yeah. Andrew's research and others have found that public funding actually incentivises private firms to invest a bit more in R&D, which is partly because all this basic science has found cool shit that then companies invest in. But the thing is, when the public funding goes away, the private sector doesn't come to the rescue.

Yeah. Andrew's research and others have found that public funding actually incentivises private firms to invest a bit more in R&D, which is partly because all this basic science has found cool shit that then companies invest in. But the thing is, when the public funding goes away, the private sector doesn't come to the rescue.

Companies are generally focused on investments that develop new products rather than exploratory basic science. And on top of that, you can't patent a lot of basic research because you're just working out how the body works or how the universe works. And you can't patent Uranus. Andrew told me that this idea that the private sector is going to foot the bill here, it's a fairy tale.

Companies are generally focused on investments that develop new products rather than exploratory basic science. And on top of that, you can't patent a lot of basic research because you're just working out how the body works or how the universe works. And you can't patent Uranus. Andrew told me that this idea that the private sector is going to foot the bill here, it's a fairy tale.

We talked about it. Why would big pharma with shareholders to look out for invest in research, basic research that may or may not go anywhere? And if it does, you can't patent it.

We talked about it. Why would big pharma with shareholders to look out for invest in research, basic research that may or may not go anywhere? And if it does, you can't patent it.

Another fairy tale down the drain.

Another fairy tale down the drain.

Last month, economists in D.C. used Andrew's research to estimate that if there really were long-term 50% reductions in federal science funding, and this may not happen, but just as an example, it would make the average American approximately $10,000 poorer. Wow. So really, these cuts that are being proposed, you genuinely think it's going to mean less wages over time for the average American?

Last month, economists in D.C. used Andrew's research to estimate that if there really were long-term 50% reductions in federal science funding, and this may not happen, but just as an example, it would make the average American approximately $10,000 poorer. Wow. So really, these cuts that are being proposed, you genuinely think it's going to mean less wages over time for the average American?