Rant: Public Funding Should Benefit the Public

Leave a reply

In a move that surprised no-one, the Harper Government finally pulled the trigger on something they’ve been openly hinting was coming. The idea itself, that of focusing public funds solely on research with strong commercial potential, holds up well to a shallow reading, after all, research that can be commercialized should result in new companies, maybe the next Facebook or Microsoft.

Except that commercial research doesn’t need funding from the government, it is in the best interest of business to fund this research. This is the purpose of the plethora of tax credit programs such as SRED, and the whole concept behind the patent. Commercial research is self-successful because it is commercial.

Instead, what the Harper Government has actually done, is defund the research that actually develops new ideas. It’s pure research that lead to computers, the internet, antibiotics, and the human genome project. It’s pure research, research with little commercial potential, that will likely give us cures for cancer, quantum computers or change our understanding of the universe. By applying shallow logic, Harper has once again set Canada back economically, and educationally. And that’s not a good thing.

Markets have limits, they are not the solution to everything. There are many, many examples of things that benefit the public that don’t work well as a market, things like Government, Justice, Education,and Science. For one thing, to be effective a market must have competition, so that if one provider isn’t fulfilling your needs you can go to another. That’s rather difficult to do in the Justice System, in Government, in Science, or in Education.

The perils of running government like a business should be self-obvious. There is no competition to government, if you don’t like the customer service or the product you’ve been given, it’s rather difficult to simply go someplace else. Just ask Jason Kenney. If the role of government is to maximize profits and minimize costs in order to benefit the shareholders, where does the public come in? Following that logic to it’s natural end, you end up with a government that looks remarkably like China or Russia, a strong plutocracy.

If the Justice System was run in order to maximize profit, you would very quickly lose one of the fundamental requirements of a just society: access to justice. As the gap between who can and cannot afford justice widens, you end up with the very definition of a plutocracy. Now, I haven’t even started law school yet, so I don’t really have that long depth of experience to draw on, but I have noticed (anecdotally) just how many folk talk about how unjust the justice system is to the little guy, and I’ve also noticed how all the law schools and legal commentators keep talking about how we need to improve access to justice. Something tells me that seeking the maximized prices the market will bear will not lead us to better justice.

Education is much the same. In any market, you find that the higher the quality of a service (just as in justice), the higher the cost of that service. If we were to turn education into a market, give it a business plan regarding maximized profit and increased return on investment, we will do as the stock market does and focus on short term investments, while simultaneously pricing a lower earning share of the populace out of education. Stratification is a movement away from the ideals of equality enshrined in the charter, and a movement towards a class system.

In a focus on educational ROI, we end up with short-term thinking, with sole focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. While STEM is good, we should not solely educate people in STEM, a free society requires thinkers that can think critically, that can deconstruct the arguments told by leaders and “gurus,” arrive at informed decisions, and recognize what policies are in and are not in one’s best interest: in other words, to be an informed citizen. And then there’s the simple truth, that in our modern information economy, those versed solely in STEM are the new manufacturing class, it’s those who can combine STEM with the arts, aesthetic, and find the intersections with other expertise that create the new companies, the Apples (Jobs combined STEM with Caligraphy to create the Mac, with music to create the iPod), and the Googles (STEM with Library Science for indexing information). The purpose of education is not just to provide skills that one can use to make money, but to serve as an incubator of ideas, ideas that can be turned into future companies, ideas that can cross-pollinate to create a new and unknown hybrid.

So what’s the big deal with focusing the NRC on commercial research? Commercial research is already in the best interest of business, thanks to programs like SRED, businesses already have an incentive to invest in R&D. Yes, they take a risk, but businesses also reap the sole rewards for their R&D payoffs, in the form of government mandated monopolies called patents, where they can recoup losses from other R&D gambles they may have made. And really, the gambles are often not that big of a gamble, since looked at rightly, just about anything is R&D these days.

The problem is that the NRC has always funded the crazy research, the stuff that businesses wouldn’t touch, the stuff that results in real paradigm shifts that are more likely to fail, but more likely to make the real changes to society in the long run. Business doesn’t usually think that long-term, business usually thinks in terms of “how will this keep me in business this year, and keep investors happy over the next quarter?” That’s much shorter term than the benefits to the public 5, 10, 20 years out, the pace that actual science works. The NRC is what funds PhDs that will go on to work at these companies, while teaching at universities and keeping the costs of tuition down. The NRC pays for the piece work that doesn’t generate a new invention but fills in a missing gap in our knowledge of the universe, including disease, genetics, geology, forestry, and agriculture. Knowledge that benefits the public as a whole, but not necessarily any private individual.

That’s the purpose of public funding, filling in the gaps left by the limits of the market, not propping up sagging business models. Yes, private companies support this new shift, after all, they support free money. Just like they support being able to pay substandard wages to temporary foreign works, in a move reminiscent of the wage-slavery of centuries past. It’s in their short-term-best interests. But its not the role of governments and public policy makers to help a few over the short term, its the role of public policy makers to act in a responsible way in the best interests of the public in the long term.

Update 10/5/2013: It appears I’m not the only one with this view. As usual, someone else said it better.

Share

“The Rule of Law” and “What About Law?”

As I prepare for law school in September, I have started reading a lot more on the subject. It seems only reasonable to try to get into the habit of reading, even a little, since I will be entering into a competition with 25 year olds what are still used to undergrad. Every little edge I can get helps. To that end, I picked up two books at the recommendation of the Guardian, those being “The Rule of Law” by Tom Bingham and “What About Law?” by Catherine Barnard et al. I’ve also taken to picking my way through Dickens’s “Bleak House,” but that’s for some other time. Both of these books deal with British Law, and being recommended by the Guardian that should hardly be a surprise, but Canadian Law has a shared history and much similar theory, so I found them interesting nonetheless.

The Rule of Law, I think is an excellent book for discussing the theory side of law, its place in our society, and why law is important. It didn’t start quite so far back as Hamurabi, but it did provide an interesting history of where the law comes from, and why things are the way they are. In a nutshell, Bingham says there are 8 principles to the rule of law as discussed:

  1. The law must be accessible
  2. Right and liability should be decided by application of the law, not at an individual’s arbitrary discretion.
  3. The law must apply to everyone equally, no one is above the law.
  4. Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, for the purpose that the powers were given.
  5. The law must protect human rights
  6. There must be means to resolve civil disputes in a timely and cost-effective manner.
  7. Adjudication procedures provided by the state must be fair.
  8. The state must comply with its international obligations 

Interestingly, whenever someone complains about the law, lawyers, the legal system, or the justice system, it seems the beef is always with one of these 8 points. It could be Bingham is onto something.

Throughout the book he provides interesting commentary and discussion of each of the 8 topics, and relates them to the law as it exists in the UK today. It’s an excellent read for anyone who wants to understand how the legal system works (in general), and why things are structured the way that they are.

“What About Law?” was a different sort of book, it was more concerned with directly discussing law with an audience of students considering law school and wondering what to expect there. Each chapter considered a different aspect of law, from constitutional through torts it hit all the general topics. In each chapter it chose one case to illustrate the principles under discussion, and approach the law from different perspectives, relying on other cases to further provide and discuss some finer points. Where “The Rule of Law” was more of a “why?” book, providing a higher level discussion of theory, “What about Law” was more of a “how,” a discussion of how the task of practicing law is carried out.

For anyone interested in how the law works and why, I would recommend “The Rule of Law,” it’s a great, accessible read and not particularly long. It stays rather interesting, and also touches a little on how the European Union works. What About Law? is probably more for those who are interested in pursuing law, but I wouldn’t rule out those interested in how law is practiced. It’s very low level and accessible as well. (Perhaps a little too much for me)

I found both of these books excellent introductions to the topic, attacking it from different sides, and I found both to be exceptionally interesting, making me more excited about starting law school.   These were definitely very high level overview books, and they were very good at that. My next exploration of the subject will dive into the specifics of school, and I’ve identified 4 books that might be good contenders. I’ll see how far I get through the list this summer.

My next reads on the subject (in order):
The Law School Book: Succeeding at Law School — Hutchinson
Getting to Maybe: How to Excel on Law School Exams — Richard Michael Fischi Jeremy Paul
Legal Writing in Plain English: A Text With Exercises — Bryan A Garner
The Concept of Law – HLA Hart

Share

My Conversion to E-Readers

Last year I undertook a challenge to read 26 books in 52 weeks. It wasn’t a particularly unattainable challenge, 1 book every 2 weeks is far less reading than the average university student (I think, I haven’t done the math). This year my goal was much lower on the number side: read Joyce’s Ulysses. While I am only about 70% of the way through Ulysses, I have managed to almost meet last year’s goal by April, simply by changing how I read.

Last year, I found that there were a lot of books that I simply wouldn’t buy because I didn’t want to have them laying around when I was done. I used to like to collect my books, regardless of wether they were books that were “good” or books that were “just” entertainment. But after moving a number of times, and after running out of places to store them, I downsized to one and a half bookshelves. I also changed my purchasing habits: if I found a book that I was interested in, I would always ask myself “Is this a book I want to have laying around when I’m done reading it.” So my decision to purchase and read books became limited by the physical nature of the book. Just as my love for a good book is also wrapped in the physicality of it, so was my interest in taking chances affected by the baggage of the book when I was done. (Yes, going to the library was also an option, but I am a creature of convenience, and the library was for some reason far more appealing to my 12-16 year old self than it is 2 decades on) Enter e-readers.

E-readers are by no means new technology. The Kindle was introduced 6 years ago in 2007, the iPad has also been around for a couple of years. When the Kindle was first released I disparaged it quite a bit, worried about things like dropping it in the bath, and the usual bibliophile reasons not to like them. Besides, I tried reading books, plays, etc on a computer, and there are just too many distractions (plus, it’s far more tiring on the eyes). When I picked up an iPad, I tried reading on it, as well. The iPad turned me off e-readers even more. I found the same difficulty reading as on computer screens (probably because of the back-lighting), but I also found the same problems with computers: there were too many distractions, too many things going on, and it was actually rather awkward compared to a book. My iPad has quickly been relegated to disuse, it overlapping with both my phone and my laptop, and not excelling in any one area more than the other two devices.

Last summer, though, I had the chance to fiddle a little with my mom’s Kindle while she was visiting, and I decided that I would like to try it out. The Kindle has also become cheap enough that I figured even if it didn’t work out, I wouldn’t be throwing as much money away on a toy as I did with my iPad. So, on completion of my 26/52 challenge, I decided to reward myself with a Kindle. I have to say that I am now a convert.

I still don’t read everything on the Kindle. Books that I love, or feel likely that I will love I will still buy as a physical book (also, books that are cheaper than the kindle version). But what it has meant is that the sort of books that I secretly love, but don’t want to have to cart around are books that I will buy now. Cheezy science fiction novels, or books that I just want to read for fun, but not have to cart about the next time I have to move.

The Kindle isn’t perfect, but it’s pretty good at what it does. In retrospect I might not have picked up the version that I did, but I like the simplicity, the readability, how it’s just as easy on my eyes as a book, and I like how light it is. I also like how it has me reading more, and reading more stuff that’s fun, not just snooty.

So yeah, I was wrong, I see the value of e-readers, now. I read more, I have more fun reading, and I spend less time doing things I used to find made me feel guilty (like watching television). The down side is that the more I read for fun, the more I find things that I used to do to relax (like TV, movies, and video games) are incredibly insipid. Sigh. I suppose that’s the trade off, I guess I will miss my pop culture.

Share

A Change in Direction

As I have mentioned before on this very blog, I used to work at a company called “Electronic Arts,” where I was a video game developer for quite a while. Around 2007 I left to finish my degree at the University of British Columbia, and to explore other career options. Since then I have continued to work mostly in and around video games, but all of that is about to change.

In January I was accepted at Osgoode Hall Law School, where I will be attending beginning this September. As such, I’ve made some changes to this blog, it will no longer be a “developer blog,” a status that realistically it hasn’t held for some time.

Why law school? Well, the facetious explanation that I’ve been giving at parties is that I’m too old to be a programmer, and it’s easier to pretend to be the age I am to get respect instead of trying to pretend to be 20 years younger to get respect. But, of course, the real reasons are far more varied and complicated. Some of the (many) reasons that I chose to go to law school are summarized in this excerpt from my personal statement.

Throughout my career in Information Technology, I have been troubled by policy and legal action that has shown a lack of understanding not only of the technology regulated, but also of the needs of an increasingly important sector of the economy and the consequences of these actions on society as a whole. I have been frustrated by the abuse of law by individuals and organizations against small businesses and individuals in order to maintain monopolies, prevent criticism, and extort funds. I have decided to pursue law in order to act as an advocate for IP reform and to assist innovative companies and individuals with IP and corporate law.

As a consumer and creator of Intellectual Property, I understand the importance of Trademark, Copyright, and Patents. Proper application of these laws encourages innovation and public trust, providing those who produce culture and consumer products with the tools they need to continue their careers. However, improper application of these laws can be used as a weapon to prevent competition and create an environment of fear. The example of Lodsys is illustrative of this abuse: here a Non-Practicing Entity has acquired a vague software patent and has been wielding it against small businesses that lack the funds to provide for a defense in order to extort licensing fees.

I have worked in labs researching pharmaceuticals, in small startup tech companies, and at large multi-national corporations. I have also spent time with film-makers, writers, artists and musicians. It has been my experience that innovators are individuals and small groups that need guidance in navigating IP and business law in order to build the next generation of businesses and cultural icons. These are my kindred spirits, and I am pursuing a legal education in order to gain the legal theory and understanding I require so that I may act as their advocate in maintaining Canada’s leadership in science, technology and culture.

Share

Someone said it better

Like many people who work or have worked in Video Games, I have struggled with the question/challenge posed by the late, great Roger Ebert. I have been trying to clarify and define my own thoughts on the debate. Well, finally I have found someone who has really pulled back the fog on my own opinion through expressing his own. Well played, sir, and thank you.

Share