Having worked for a government that was nowhere near as wasteful as the Federal Government and seen the problems even there, I have leaned toward approving of DOGE activities even when scare stories are circulated. I expect that those stories may even be true, and the justification for getting rid of agency A or department B pretty shaky. Yet I also know that we are only hearing one side of the incident, highly dependent on the source. Now more than ever. And the horrified do not seem willing to come to grips with how far the family is already in debt. Yes, a Mercedes is a great investment but...
Yet I also know the wisdom of Chesterton's Fence, not to remove something until we understand why it was put there to begin with. Am I abandoning some of my principles for others, and have I chosen correctly? The first defense for DOGE would be that the field is full of fences, and when we try to evaluate each one cautiously, two more spring up before we are done.
But still, Chesterton's Fence...
In that spirit, I give you In Defense of Weird Research.
11 comments:
When I was an undergrad the story of Proxmire going after a researcher studying the effects of marijuana on male sex drive made the headlines for a while (the researcher was local). Naturally the hearings cost a large factor more than the balance of the research grant. I wondered at the time what would have happened if the study had, when completed, found that marijuana depressed sex drive, or even performance. Would that have made the drug less popular? (The older me doubts that it would have changed much.)
Chesterton's Fence held that he might let you do away with something once you could explain what it was for, but not if you didn't know.
I thought I knew what USAID was for. It was in a minimal way for aid; it was in a larger way to enable us to have people moving around and doing things in areas we had interests. It was a cover, in other words, for intelligence and clandestine activities. And it did a lot of good in that way.
What DOGE revealed was that it was also a funding mechanism for enabling unconstitutional activities (like encouraging censorship mechanisms that would affect Americans) and NGOs that advanced agendas favorable to the governing class.
Now that I know that, I favor getting rid of it. Before, I favored its existence. DOGE was the mechanism of knowledge.
Chesterton's Fence is sure popping up in lots of places these days; I can't remember ever hearing it before this year. Therefore, I'm still trying to wrap my head around it, and how it is and isn't an appropriate metaphor for specific things. I take the 'fence' metaphor as describing an outsider (esp. an appointed outsider come to help) walking into an existing community, that mostly operates OK, and observing behaviors, policies, social standards, etc. that have developed over time and are ingrained in the local culture - i.e. fences that have their roots in the significant past, built on land with the general approval of the landowners, and generally accepted by the landowners. As opposed to fences that were built in the current generation, by single (or few) individuals who "know best", across private land without consent of the landowner (through force, bribery, or eminent domain), but don't worry, you'll get used to it, see that it works in the long run, and thank me later. If the fence was built in living memory, there are people who know how things were before and after the fence, and whether it seems to be doing good, bad, or indifferent. That's the two basic fences I can define at this point, no doubt, the gradations can be made much finer.
Regarding bizarre research, that's more or less where I've spent my working life, so I'm all in favor of it. However, there's the storied golden age of government supported basic research, where clever and devoted people were set loose to study interesting questions, with intellectual rigor and the scientific method, versus what seems to have been happening for some time now. When I started graduate school in a biological field (in the late 20th century), there was a certain amount of griping about the government moving towards "targeted research", as in, "Here's a pile of money, promise that you can cure [disease] in 5 years." That hasn't changed much. Even when basic research is ostensibly being supported, there are priorities for funding, based on what disease is (or is perceived as) the current major threat, such that the finite pool of cash is diverted away from other areas. Not that it's a bad thing to emphasize issues, that's how we got polio vaccines, HIV drugs, and other wonderful things. However, that's the point of the linked article - all the benefits that came from an interesting question without an obvious application, at that time. Researchers have had to very carefully design their funding applications to the NIH/NSF to have a chance at making the cut, and if you're looking at anything in human biology (which is where a lot of money is), you'd better have a direct application to looking at a disease, or you aren't getting far. The edge has gone to researchers who can play the politics and produce the right type of results. We all admire the crazy breakthroughs, but good luck getting support to make them. The Nobel Prize winning discoverer of graphene was told that he was wasting his time, and ruining his career by following up on an unexplainable result, and suffered in the wilderness for years because of it.
Grim's recent post on his blog about fire danger - and that locals have largely had to clean up what they could without much help from federal or state sources - brought to my recollection how FEMA's ghouls told those people there just wasn't any money available to help them out; and how much that rankled.
Since then, DOGE has revealed that at more or less the same time Appalachia was being told to suck eggs, the .Gov was parking tens of billions in non-government bank accounts to try and keep it out of the hands of anyone not affiliated with their cabal.
So, fond as I am of Chesterton, I'm afraid I'd have to tell him, "To hell with your wall, lad. Not only do I no longer have even the smallest care why it was put up, but I'm going to be a might peeved if the folks tearing it down leave so much as one stone upon another."
Somewhat anecdotal but most of the times I've read about an unusual research discovery, it tends to be an unexpected outcome from bog-standard testing rather than a proposal that set out to push the Overton Window. IIRC Rogaine was a side-effect from a blood pressure medication. Even the marijuana example above is a salacious but perfectly normal question to ask about a substance.
God has given men a lot of fences…and he has chosen to ignore most if not all them to our own detriment.
In any complex system, or in chaos, one can often find pieces which, in isolation, appear silly, but which are, in fact, critical to the operation of the system. Conversely, one may also find pieces, which in isolation appear to be genius, and are, in fact, useless and wasteful. Such systems provide ample ammunition for criticism and posturing in a highly charged and highly polarized environment.
If one finds a fence in the middle of a well manicured field, one might give deference to the fence, and the one who built it. If the fence is in the middle of a swamp, not so much.
If the fence is in the middle of a weed-ridden garden, it just might be in the way of the rototiller.
If the presumption is the fence was built by someone wise and noble, it is well to seek his wisdom. If, however, the presumption is that all the fences were created by ignobles, with values and purposes antithetical to your own, the value of the fence is diminished.
I've read more of these arguments lately. Here are some thoughts.
The public bears the costs. All of the government support comes from money taken from American citizens. Who reaps the benefits? Not much of the profit made by global pharmaceutical companies results in tax revenue for the US, while Americans pay the highest prices for medicine and medical treatments. The societal benefits of some studies may be massive, but unquantifiable.
If the public pays for it, the public should be able to read the reports of the results of their investments, without having to pay a ransom to scientific journal publishers. Aaron Schwartz had a good point.
All research should be published, including negative results. This should decrease the amount of needless repetition of negative results, especially when it involves animal testing.
How many of the studies replicate? How many studies to replicate prior results are funded?
Re Doge and the mysterious fence, none of these agencies are of agelong life. All were created in the last few generations, for specific, known purposes. Chesterton does not apply.
In the face of 36 TRILLION dollar national debt, I'm really OK with slashing .GOV spending everywhere possible.
Every FED politician in office bears responsibility and if Elon et al can find evidence of illegal gains (Graft, bribes, insider stock treading etc) those monies should be seized and applied to reducing the national debt.
Zero tax dollars should be shipped overseas until we are out of the hole.
Post a Comment