Thats the fallacy of the seen: You don't know what would have been discovered otherwise. Non-government funded discoveries include salk and Sabin polio vaccines and the chemiosmotic effect.

I personally notice that a lot of government funded research goes to PIs of questionable intelligence that have merely mastered grantsmanship... How many brilliant young scientists have had their careers cut short by being discouraged by the granting system instead of going on to make discoveries in science?

The grant process is terrible. Let's fix it.

Or are you implying that for some unspecified reason that would be impossible?

It's impossible. Responsible government has to have a mechanism for accountability, and this is antithetical to basic science.

By that logic the only way to fund basic science is for independently wealthy scientists to fund their own research, since otherwise they would be accountable to someone.

I expect the problematic accountability would be accountability for results, but why would that be necessary for government funded research? Negative results are progress, not failure. Now you know something doesn't work when you didn't before.

On the other hand, if there was accountability for e.g. the research being reproducible, why would that be antithetical to science?

Because protecting taxpayer money which is collected nonconsensually incurs a higher standard of accountability. Accountability is important because a scientist can claim basic science to engage in irresponsible dalliances, and cover by claiming "basic science". It happens all the time as a part of Grantsmanship

How is the problem of irresponsible scientists different for the government than private funders? I can assure you that private funders want the highest standard of accountability available.

Private funders can be assumed to have taken that risk when choosing to spend their money. Public funders do not. Like it or not, for example, congress has continued to appropriate millions for "holistic" and "integrative" medicine research. When for the most part it was discovered to be bunk, they fired the chief administrator and redoubled efforts under the justification that "not enough had been spent to achieve a positive result"

Discovered in what otherwise?

It's not like public research funding comes at the expense of private research. Public research funding allows there to be a higher total number of scientists doing research than there would be, all else equal, without it.

And there are clearly things patents don't provide the right incentives for. Anything that benefits all of humanity is very difficult to recover the value of as a patent because engaging in licensing transactions with every single person everywhere is prohibitively expensive. And then the license fees artificially reduce adoption of the invention until the patent expires due to supply and demand (price goes up, demand goes down), making it even harder to recover the full value of the invention. Which would imply that patents necessarily result in under-investment in research.

> "it's not like public research funding comes at the expense of private research"

Yes, it does. It sucks productive capacity of the scientists, and also has a system that's destructive to the creative potential of people actually doing it and trying to "make it", ultimately incompetent people are promoted, and that causes a death spiral as competent people are disinventivised from continuing to participate because the smart and observant ones quickly realize labor is exploited by their lessers, and they get out. Ironically, increasing public funding to the sciences makes this worse by rewarding the existing superstructure of leadership (and creating more bureaucracy to administer). The bureaucracy is even worse: who decides to become a science administrator instead of a PI? Only the people who really couldn't hack it. (With apologies to the two exceptions I know personally)

> "Anything that benefits all of humanity is very difficult to recover the value of as a patent because engaging in licensing transactions"

"Anything that benefits all of humanity" should be recognized as inherently valuable to fund and therefore would be useful to look at reducing the costs of "engaging in licensing transactions". In other words, society may benefit by making it easier (or less costly) for the researcher or innovator to be rewarded - thereby increasing the incentive to create something to benefit humanity.

What are you actually proposing? Some abstract means of reducing licensing transaction costs? How?

Salk was a university researcher, and his polio vaccine had its research and trials funded by public donations to a tax-exempt non-profit organization which was founded by FDR, the US president.

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. Are you suggesting that scrapping government funded research in favor of letting tax-exempt charities handle it instead would lead to just as much innovation?