Funding for Science

Well, that's a old question. The question is why should we fund it? And who is to fund it? I think if you look at the value of what science has produced in terms of just the gross domestic product, you'll find that it's enormous. Where would we be without the transistor? Or without lasers? Without computers? Obviously we wouldn't be where we are. I would say that science such as quantum theory, not to speak of the germ theory of disease, and penicillin and all that, have contributed an enormous amount to the gross domestic product. And if we could collect on the value of what we have created, if the intellectual property laws somehow were different, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to charge five per cent of the GDP. If you have any kind of invention like a windshield wiper, or something like that, you can do that. And so the way you should think about funding science is in terms of its value. Forget about its intellectual value, the value it produces for the society. And it has produced enormous value, and I think the best way to fund it is as some percentage of the GDP which is not dependent on congressional whims. Which is sort of like the interest on the national debt. That is the way I would fund science.