As a physicist with an interest in Austrian economics, Science, Technology, and Government by Murray N. Rothbard is the sort of book I was looking for! Mises.org is an incredible resource.
Some related resources:
My question is: All these book sand articles view scientific research in terms of research & development (R&D) that ultimately will result in a non-Intellectual Property (IP), marketable product; but many great scientific discoveries were not found with the goal of creating a marketable, non-IP product. Are there any works in the Austrian tradition that treat the "economics of science" in terms of a persuit of truth, i.e., that treat the "scientific economy" in isolation from a nation's economy at large? Viz., are there Austrian tradition works that criticize peer-review, non-open-access journals, and non-patent IP?
Also, has anyone here read The economic laws of scientific research by Terence Kealey?
Thanks & merry Christmas
You could look at the chapter in Mises' Human Action where he talks about the "creative genius".
The problem with what you're asking for is that there's very, very little that can be determined about any event of a free individual in which he does not act within any sort of specific system. For instance, the teachings of praxeology are substantial because of the fact that they look at a specific framework in which human action can operate, what you're asking for does not.
The scientist acts under certain conditions to attempt to achieve the end of truth. The means that he employs will be those which he believe will best achieve this end goal (assuming that he cares for little else) with as little being sacraficed as possible until he reaches his goal, his values change, he dies, or the means by which he believes that his goal can be reached are no longer available to him.
This is just about all that we can say about the scientist who pursues truth in the classical praxeological manner of Austrians. If more information was given then more can be done, but to my knowledge beyond the chapter in Human Action there has been little done on what you're specifically asking for.
The most you'll probably find for science around here is how it affects production processes and entrepreneurship, the effects of intellectual property, and the differences between the social and hard sciences.
Thanks for the reply
The Austrian economists must certainly talk about the role of the university in an economy, though. I assume they'd oppose government-funded education.
Also, there certainly is a demand for pure truths. The government system of doing science "is a system that is 'obsessed with supply, and … ignores[s] actual demand.'," as Anita Acavalos's article says. The goverment system fails to recognize exactly what the demand for pure truths is. There is such a demand becasue how else would private universities function?
So, I read the "Creative Genius" section, and it seems that Mises does not recognize intellectual property. I would've thought he would recognize it yet discourage government regulation of it.
Mises writes (p. 139): "The activities of the prodigious men cannot be fully subsumed under the praxeological concept of labor. They are not labor because they are for the genius not means, but ends in themselves. [...] The achievements of the creative inventor [...] cannot be classified praxeologically as the products of labor. They are not the outcome of the employment of labor which could have been devoted to the production of other ammentities for the 'production' of a masterpiece of philosophy, art, or leturature."
I would've thought the process of seeking truths would be the means and the truths sought the end product. Why does Mises contrast the "production of other [non-intellectual] ammentities" with the "achievements of the creative inventor"?
Thanks
Also, as I wrote here, in the "Production" section following the "Creative Genius" one of Human Action, Mises defines prouction as (p. 140)
not an act of creation [...]. The producer is not a creator. Man is creative only in thinking and in the realm of imagination. In the world of external phenomena he is only a transformer.
Yet, he seems to contradict this, saying that production "is a spiritual and intellectual phenomenon" (p. 141), as though production were creative in addition to being transformative.
He concludes this section with (p. 142):
[W]e do not know what mind is, just as we do not know what life, motion, and electricity are. Mind is simply the word to signify the unknown factor that has enabled men to achieve all that they have accopmlished.
If Mises does "not know what mind is," other than it being an "unknown factor," then how does he know "mind" is not matter and that, against the Marxist materalists, "the 'productive forces' are not material" (p. 141)?
one important thing to keep in mind is the public choice angle, i.e. do not commit the nirvana fallacy, and actually comparing govt funding of "pure" science vs. what would happen in a free market and not comparing free market funding vs. some mythical system where unbiased scientific purists are handing out funds based completely on merit (this concept when analyzed fully, doesn't even make sense on theoretical grounds, much less practical, public choice grounds)
Kinsella in other peices points out how its important for companies to fund and do basic scientific research so that they can keep abreast with the workings of the field so that they are up to date and aren't totally behind the times when it comes time to reverse engineer something. Basically, there are a lot more overhead costs in being in the business of copying scientific breakthroughs than would appear to the naked eye.
If people are willing to vote for a politician to steal money from people to give to science to fund pure science, if they have morals at all, would then give freely to support these same scientists when the forced payment is taken away. Sure the people who would have been voting agaisnt such measures wont be funding anymore, but the money will go sooooo much further. No crowding out effect raising prices, and a more productive economy in general help make up for this. I use a similar argument when it comes to charity for the poor.