A Stitch in Haste

A quick follow-up to this old post about the problems created by revised conflict-of-interest rules at the National Institutes of Health:

Nearly 40 percent of the scientists conducting hands-on research at the National Institutes of Health say they are looking for other jobs or are considering doing so to escape new ethics rules that have curtailed their opportunity to earn outside income.

Most scientists say the ethics crackdown is too severe, and nearly three-quarters of them believe it will hinder the government's ability to attract and keep medical researchers, according to a survey commissioned by the government's premier medical research agency.

Of course, we could open up a nice little libertarian debate about whether there should even be a National Institutes of Health, whether "public science" passes an objective cost-benefit analysis or is simply a manifestation of the Politics of the Warm Fuzzy Feeling, whether the government crowds out the for-profit and not-for-profit private market for scientists, and whether the arguments supporting government funding of hard science carry over to, say, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts or PBS. Feel free to initiate such a debate in the comments.

My point now, as was my point then, is simply that most scientists are not altruists, do not think of themselves as "public servants" and should not be expected to work for free or for less than their objective, market-based worth. The "best and the brightest" should be rewarded as such, which ought to mean something more than a pat on the back from a bureaucrat or a politician. And if that means letting them earn a little bit on the side, then so be it. If you believe in the NIH (a big "if"), then better "a little bit on the side" than "their entire livelihood in the private sector," no?