Welcome to Free Thoughts from Libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute. I'm Aaron Ross Powell, editor of Libertarianism.org and a research fellow here at the Cato Institute. And I'm Trevor Burrus, a research fellow at the Cato Institute Center for Constitutional Studies. Our guest today is Terence Keely, Vice Chancellor Emeritus at the University of Buckingham and author of, among other works, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. You make a distinction between Francis Bacon's view of science and Adam Smith's. Can you tell us a bit about that? That's a nice question because I set the whole book up really as a debate between the two and they completely disagree with each other. Francis Bacon, who by the way was in many respects a very deep and great thinker. He was, for example, the person who invented the concept of progress. And as I was saying yesterday, it's astonishing that the idea of progress is only 400 years old. So he had some very deep thoughts and very good thoughts. But on the subject of economics of science, he I think got it absolutely wrong. He suggested that the Spanish had become the world's richest power as they were 400 years ago because Henry the Navigator had set up in Sargeras in Western Portugal essentially a research institute based on pure science developing improved methods of navigation. And he suggested that technology is the source of power and wealth which we all agree with to this day. But he said the source of technology came from the government funding of pure as well as of applied science. The trouble with that idea is that it's based on a myth. Henry the Navigator never did that. He simply put out the story that he'd done all this research and development because he was trying to bolster his image in Europe. In fact, he was just a pragmatic soldier and sailor. So did he name himself the Navigator? Was that part of his self-promotion? Well, it's a nice question because he certainly was full of self-promotion. No, I think that came later. He himself never bought a ship, funnily enough. Oh, really? It was all done on land. And he also said that science is a public good and he came up with all sorts of theories as to why that should be, which is still repeated to this day. Adam Smith, unlike Francis Bacon, actually had seen an industrial revolution in action. He actually saw the early industrial revolution taking place in Scotland and he said it's simply not true that technology, applied science, comes out of pure science. In fact, in those days pure science was in such a sad state with people believing in things like flogiston, fire as a material, or the caloric theory that heat as material. He said it just isn't so. What actually happens is that technologists on the ground, in the factories, on the factory floor, make the developments and originate the new ideas. And if anything, the flow of knowledge goes the other way, that the academics benefit from the advances made on the factory floor. And so the fundamental difference between the two is this. Adam Smith says you can leave science and development to the market. It will find all the money it needs because of the motivation of companies to develop better science and technology on the factory floor. As Bacon says, technology comes out of pure science. No one will fund pure science if the government doesn't do it. Therefore, governments have to fund pure science. So that's the very striking difference between the two models. Would you say this is kind of maybe a different conception of what science is for also at the backdrop of this because you could have these sort of pure scientific thought type of theory, maybe more like bacon, whereas useful science, so Adam Smith is focused on useful science and building things that help people live better lives, but thinking about the stars and all these things like that, people think that has its inherent worth too, even if it's not useful for anything. Yes, but Adam Smith was very suspicious of people who put in claims for government money for the greater public good. He did accept there were public goods. I mean, he didn't deny that roads and schools could be public goods, but he always felt that you really had to justify government funding to private individuals who claimed to be doing it for the public good. And he would have argued, I'm sure what we know because he did talk about this, he would have argued that there is enough private funding of science either through students paying fees to universities who can then via that money into research or coming straight out of the research of industrialists that you just don't need to burden the taxpayer with that. That's what I think he would have said. And the story is bigger than that too, because in your book, Economic Laws, Signed of Research in particular, it goes back to antiquity. I mean, you think the Phoenicians had a thing different than the empires and moving up through there. Can you talk a little about how they had a leg up too and why? Well, the ancient world is very, very interesting on this subject. The thing that he was particularly keen on, Francis Bacon, was the extraordinary explosion of science under the Hellenic Greek period. After the classical Greek period had come to an end, you then had the Hellenic Greek period, often based on what was going on in Egypt. And he describes that the Ptolemies in particular invested a fortune in science and research, and they paid for the museum and they paid for the library and they sponsored a whole host of fantastic science. There's no question. They did fantastic science along the lines that you suggested, and some of the people that they funded worked out the diameter of the earth to win an extraordinary degrees of accuracy and Archimedes and all these people. But the point that Smith would make about all that is that it didn't end up with any economic development whatsoever. And in fact, all that science simply impoverished the peasants of Egypt who were being burdened with the taxation to pay for that science, but none of it translated into technological economic growth. And so the ancient world actually shows a very good example of how the funding of pure science in the absence of a market because there was no real market in those days is simply a waste of people's money. This isn't a lot of especially pure science, a really long game in the sense that we put all of this effort in. We make these discoveries, but it may take 100, 200, 300, 400 years before those discoveries snowball with others made along the way and then radically improve the lives of people. And so I could see an argument that it's like, sure, the peasants at the time did not benefit, but on the whole the world is far better off today or at some point since this research was done because the research was done. And if we had been focusing only on what we know would better our peasants today, then we never would have seen the enormous progress. Well, it is of course true that you get developments in science that sometimes are not really translated into economic or technological benefit for 100 or 200 years. That statement is quite correct. The question is actually, do you need government funding to achieve those? Or if you lived in a world where there was no government funding, would in fact, as we now call them philanthropists and institutions fund those separately and independently? And the Adam Smith argument was that they would have. He himself, for example, got a student ship to do his work at Baylor College, Oxford, because a philanthropist had endowed a student ship that he was able to capture. And in his day, there was a significant, rather like American universities today, there was a significant philanthropic world around Oxford and Cambridge and universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh and coupled with the fact that these institutions could charge really quite significant fees of their students. He argued, I mean, I'm not saying he would have argued, he did argue that there was no need, even for those long-term developments that you described to be funded by the government, because in fact, there were a sufficient number of private individuals around who would have funded them. And we see the revolution, too, that Adam Smith is the industrial revolution, the beginning of it and an agricultural revolution. Before that, all these seemed to create technology that was more useful, very slowly, more useful for people in creating innovations, especially in the industrial revolution. Yes, I mean, one of the really interesting stories is why did the industrial revolution take place in Britain then? I actually think it's the other way around. I think the question is, why didn't the industrial revolution take place much, much earlier? If you look back through history, you see constantly really exciting periods of time when, for example, Renaissance Italy was a ferment of fantastic commercial development. They invented double-entry bookkeeping. They invented all sorts of technologies for commerce. And just as Italy was about to take off, unfortunately, it got invaded by the French and the Spanish and the Austrians. And so, again, I think that there was no Spanish and the Austrians. And so, the history of the world really... China is another very good example. China had some fantastic technology. They invented printing or they invented... Gunpowder and... Yeah, long, long, long before we did in the West. But unfortunately, time and time again, they get these emperors who just crush everything. So, I think the question is the other way around. The industrial revolution happened in Britain because we'd had the Glorious Revolution in 1688. And frankly, there was no one around to stop it from developing. We did have coal. We did have steel. That was all terribly helpful. But I think England, after 1688, would have developed something glorious anyway. And what Adam Smith would have said is, the market generates both the need and the incentive. If we three sitting around this table were competing in a market, we would each of us have a strong incentive to do research and development to beat the other two. And because research and development is always unpredictable, who knows what discoveries you ultimately end up making. You don't need government to incentivize the three of us to try to defeat each other in the market. What about something like a good... Right around the time we're talking about now, a good counter-example possibly is the longitude prize. This seems like something in the story we tell that this was solving a very difficult problem that was very important in using public money but with competition behind it. Could government do something like that or did it do it successfully with the longitude prize? Now, that is a very good question. And I think you've slightly got me on slightly the backflip. I think you've got me on slightly got me on slightly the back foot. But let me just make a few points about this before I can see defeat. First of all, the government energy and you put the money afterwards. So Harrison had to develop his clock in the anticipation. And the government also cheated and didn't actually pay up for about 20 years. They didn't give Harrison his view. I remember that, yeah. But I think although what you say is quite true, that's not really government funding research. It's more government acting on behalf of society to identify a need. It's more corporate state. Because let's have a counterfactual. If the government hadn't done that, would there still have been a need for better determination of longitude and would someone like Harrison eventually have developed a better clock? The answer is obviously yes. So I think what the government was doing was actually anticipating the market signals. Though it is a good question that all government money is always wasted. Oh, absolutely. Even a broken clock is right sometimes. What? Twice a day, I guess. So the question I guess we can get to is to frame the rest of the conversation is science a public good? Oh, no. What is the argument that it is and what's wrong with that? That is a very interesting argument and it's one I've dedicated too many years of my life to. But I'm now very clear that it's absolutely not a public good. It's very simple. Imagine the three of us are competing in the marketplace and I go out there and do lots of research and development which is very, very expensive and I develop a better product. You two can copy my product more cheaply than it cost me to make it. So you can get the information you can either go to the library and read the papers or you can go to the patent library and read the patents or you can just take my machinery and put it to bits and work out how to copy. And I think in innovation that when you do copy you end up with much more capital in your company than I have because I've already spent all my capital and so you'll drive me into bankruptcy. That's the public good argument. The trouble with that argument and the reason it's actually wrong and you can state categorically it's wrong there's lots of evidence that it's wrong is that actually it's very expensive to copy. The studies have been done. The direct costs of copying technology ready to take to the marketplace are about 65% of the cost of innovation averaged out across a number of industries and a large number of companies but that's only the direct costs the indirect costs bring it up to 100% because to copy you need to have skilled scientists, skilled researchers still technologists who actually understand what it is they're trying to copy. You if I were to take you and put you in the middle of Unilever and say copy that product you wouldn't be able to do it you need to be a chemist to be able to do that and to be a chemist able to copy is sufficient quality that you're actually generating your own science and if you're not generating science of the equivalent quality in the same sort of field you simply are not qualified to copy. That's just the pragmatic reality of it and we know that sometimes companies like DuPont for example try to stop their scientists from publishing for sort of decades of time and the scientists cease to become productive and the company's fortunes collapse because they weren't able to import the science and technology from other people because no one in the company if you want to copy you've got to be an active scientist yourself so you've got to contribute to the pool of knowledge that's the payment to the pool of knowledge and it's absolutely not a public good it's a good that's really only available to other people who contribute so just earlier this year Martin Ricketts and I he's a professor at Buckingham published a paper entitled in Research Policy which is the top journal in this field entitled Modeling Science as a Contribution Good and we model that against science as a public good and the empirical data fits the fact that science isn't a public good there's no evidence that government funding of science is actually ever stimulated economic growth so we have to discard the public good model but the public good model is simply based on the misconception you can't just copy other people's science only active scientists who contribute can copy other people's science Let me ask a question about those costs of copying versus costs of innovation because it seems like one big difference so in both cases you need skilled people putting a lot of time in and participating but a big difference between innovation and copying is with copying you know there's something at the end of the process whereas with innovation there's going to be a lot of blind alleys and dead ends and so yeah you may get something but you may have gone had all sorts of starts that went nowhere but the copier says there it is I can see it I just have to figure out how to do it so those costs have kind of I guess failed innovation or innovation that didn't happen was it petered out factored into the cost of copying On the direct cost of copying no on the indirect I think they are because there's another consequence of the fact that research is unpredictable sometimes you produce very good things that you never thought you were going to produce in the first place I mean a classic example is Nokia you know it started off as a forestry company ended up making mobile phones or cell phones as you call them here because that was the way their technology ended up so everyone is engaged in R&D for a number of different purposes one of which is to try to create innovations of their own another of which is to copy and each of them that has a spectrum of activities all the competitors are all engaging in their own full starts because they are not engaging in their own primary research ultimately they are not going to be able to copy anyway so the costs of the full starts are actually shared between everyone in the industry it's just the costs of doing business so you're absolutely right some of those calculations costs are not taken into account but the indirect costs so the direct costs of copying is 65% but the full starts come within the indirect costs within the 35% that I talked about the tacit knowledge and all the other material you have to invest into before you start the business of copying does this apply though to things I mean maybe I feel like everyone would be thinking about things like the super colliders and these sort of things that could only come through public funding maybe the answer is if they come from public funding maybe they shouldn't even be built maybe they're just too expensive and not worth it and then people will say well what is your fascination with the universe don't you just want to know about smashing atoms together let's take that point because what's often forgotten is how huge science was funded in this country in the United States of America there was no public funding of science at any significant value whatsoever before 1940 and yet you had the 100 inch and the 200 inch palomar telescopes you had Mooney Goddard getting his rockets up to 7000 feet and developing all the technology that NASA and I regret to say the Nazis ultimately used all this funded by the Carnegie Foundation in that case and the Rockefeller Foundation and what's interesting is that before 1940 there's an enormous outpouring of philanthropic support for science in this country so for example when the Manhattan project started and the scientists out on the west coast needed a cyclotron they actually got a cyclotron funded by one of the east coast philanthropic foundations because the government at the time didn't understand the need for a cyclotron because the government at the time didn't understand the need from an atom bomb so the early part of atom bomb technology although it was a government program was actually been funded by philanthropists who understood better than the government what was needed so the answer to the point is ultimately that if there really is a human desire for knowledge that you described you either leave it to people like Bill Gates who made their fortunes of investing in foundations or you say to people well you got the American Heart Foundation you got the American Diabetes Association you know what's the stop individuals coming together let me give you an example of SETI the search for extraterrestrial intelligence SETI has a budget of $7 million a year there's not a trivial amount of money given to them by multi-millionaires who really believe that we should be looking for little green men out there so I just don't see any evidence of the philanthropic failure You say that we could just come together form organizations that would then fund the American Heart Association and SETI and whatnot but isn't that as our friends on the left would say precisely what government is government is us coming together and deciding we want to in this case fund science Yeah but the difference is that the government can send policemen to my house at 3 o'clock in the morning and arrest me if I haven't made my contributions to science and lots of people don't want to contribute to science there are lots of Christians for example fundamentalist Christians who think science is very threatening to their faith who don't believe in evolution so I think that the trouble with the government is that it has coercion I mean I'm in the middle of the Cato here you know this and the question is should people be coerced into supporting this sort of thing and I think the answer is no You can make the argument that government is however imperfectly answerable to the people we elect people we vote on issues government therefore represents the will of the people and the funding it might in some aggregate represents the will of the people but if we kick it over entirely to rich people or foundations then science what gets funded and the kind of scientific progress we might make is now subject to the whims of plutocrats Now that is a very good argument and I half agree with it I do only half but I do half agree with it I think there is a role for fully funded science and I think it's simply summed up in one word cigarettes would we have discovered what we know about cigarettes and the damage they do without government funding or science well actually we probably would have funnily enough because Richard Dole he did work for the medical research council in England so he was funded under government program but I actually think that if you go back at the time there was sufficient concern about the growth of lung cancer lung cancer just came from nowhere and Richard Dole were looking at it it was absolutely in the air where lung cancer suddenly come from it was this explosion of cigarette smoking that took place in the 20s and 30s after the first world war so I actually think that there is sufficient evidence that the foundations would in fact have addressed that problem however I do accept your point as a fundamental point that a democratic government should fill in the gaps if they see areas that either the philanthropists or industry aren't funding but it's the role of democratic government but it's relatively inexpensive that's not fundamental in sort of science to create economic growth and secondly don't fool yourself into thinking you're going to create economic growth that way because you won't but you may well need to meet a social need that neither philanthropists nor industry will meet and there I'm with you Can we trust even the apparatus of democratic government to be funding sometimes it might be funding smoking anti-smoking campaign research into smoke into the causes but at other times it might be funding something based on politics that ends up being bad science or in bad because the whims of the democratic body politic are definitely not very scientific Now you get gross abuse I mean this pork barreling you know roads in Alaska the bridges that end in the middle of nowhere and there are huge numbers there was a fascinating debate in America between 1945 and 1950 which really has now been forgotten but it illustrates this point beautifully By 1945 there was universal bipartisan agreement that America needed the government to fund more science because before 1940 the American government funded no science and there was bipartisan agreement that with the Cold War and the new world we're moving into we should fund science I don't believe in that but forgetting that that's what the American people and their representatives believed but there was a fascinating and totally sterilizing argument which for five years stopped anything from happening because there were two schools of thought there was the school of thought that came behind Vannevar Bush who was the famous intellectual who wrote Science Endless Frontier and he said that scientific money should be distributed only by scientists two other scientists based on merit on the other hand against him Senator Kilgore with the complete support of President Truman said that's undemocratic money should be distributed only by politicians and it should be according to national needs so every state would get as much money for its research in proportion to its population nothing to do with merit and so Massachusetts which has this extraordinary collection of brilliant science in Boston would get no more money than Colorado which is Arkansas which is a different and Congress looked at this and decided that President was wrong and that Kilgore was wrong and in 1947 passed a bill to create the National Science Foundation where money was distributed by scientists to other scientists based on merit and merit alone and it was vetoed by Truman and his veto it's all in there actually and the veto states this represents a lack of faith in the democratic process but hey we all know about public choice we all know about pork barreling we see what our representatives actually do they're the last people to distribute research grants and so in 1950 when the crisis developed because of the Korean war and other crises coming out of the Soviet Union the executive surrendered to the legislature and we ended up with a system we have now and to be fair to the system we have now if you can keep democratically elected politicians out of it and just leave it to elite scientists funding other elite scientists I don't think it does as well as the market does but it certainly isn't a disaster and the quality of American science these days is a course of international excellence Is it possible that in certain situations maybe I'm thinking for example dietary research the U.S. Department of Agriculture and suggesting different things for dietary purposes but being influenced by say the meat lobby in terms of what they're going to recommend are they going to recommend no trans fat are they going to recommend less red meat but then the meat lobby comes in and puts some pressure on this in terms of science and where the funding is going and then starts to skew the dietary science and I mean if you think about the history of what the American government has recommended for diet at different points it seems to be wildly all over the place and based a lot on on research that maybe was wrong as we now think butter is okay for example Well actually that is a very perceptive point because one of the problems of democratically funded science is that it makes you vulnerable to lobbyists I think dietary research is in a terrible state I mean for example we're all told that breakfast is the most important meal of the day it's not unrelated to the fact that almost every study that says that is ended up ultimately funded by general mills or Kellogg's or post I mean and that doesn't mean that this is corrupt but it just means that there's clearly an incentive to find those sort of findings and so one of the great dangers of democratically funded science is that you end up with a government actually acting on behalf of the lobbyists because they're told that's good for employment in Minnesota and so it is a double danger whereas the Rockefeller Foundation could do the same dietary research and wouldn't give a dam about employment in Minnesota it would just try to find what the truth was so democratic science can be very dangerous But I'm struck that your example of how democratic science could go wrong was made by pointing to studies funded by private companies and showing how those how the private funding influences the studies in perhaps the wrong direction so isn't this precisely the kind of problem that would also exist with public with private funding of science that you would have general mills and Kellogg saying we're going to fund stuff but only if it looks like it's going to tell people to eat more Wheaties. I would actually go the other way I would actually say that the great foundations like the Gates Foundation or whatever will be much more likely to look fairly at dietary research if they didn't feel the government was already doing it for them and the trouble is the government isn't doing it the government appears to be doing it in an objective and dispassionate way but actually is far too susceptible to this terrible bit of funding so this comes out of the question you asked ten minutes ago is there a role for government funding of science to act as a third lobby against philanthropists and against industry to which the answer is yes but unfortunately it doesn't do it very well it's far too susceptible to this pressure from lobbyists so very often government ends up amplifying the message that lobbyists want and it's a very dangerous thing. What about incidental effects I think a lot of people are probably thinking okay sure dietary stuff lobbyists are researching specific things but isn't the case that for example the American military has just just by researching its own aims has given huge amounts of innovation to the world and especially the space program you know whether it's Tang or space ice cream or all these computers and all these things that have come out of this they were pursuing one thing but then all these amazing things came out on the other side. Well people have done studies on this and I can give you references I mean military research is only about ten percent as valuable as civil research it's a complete waste of money the whole NASA program has been a complete waste of money I mean what benefit did we actually get from landing men on the moon it's it's it was all a defense initiative and a national projection of pride the Americans were deeply offended in 1957 that the Soviets launched Putnik first but what good did that do the Soviet Union which which collapsed with the economic complete failure 30 years later the whole model of these ground projects creating these spillovers that benefit society actually it doesn't work the benefits of NASA have been trivial I mean and it's not true about stick you know the the non-stick frying pan that had nothing to do with NASA The only thing that is relevant here is you know the internet and it's absolutely true that CERN you know which is your which is the super collider that we have in Europe did produce an individual who did make this extraordinary development in what was then called distributed computing to which I would say if you look at the gargantuan gargantuan some as the money invested in these research programs of course something's going to come out of it the question is would something come out of it if there had been none of these gargantuan programs the money therefore retained within the corporations within society at large I think the answer is absolutely yes I mean the classic example is the airplane there was a race in the very very early part of the 20th century between the Wright brothers and Langley and the Smithsonian now the Wright brothers won that race but if Langley had won that race everyone would have said well we wouldn't have the airplane but for government funding and science he was funded by the government so and yet of course we know so no one ever makes that argument and the airplane of course we now understand and because the airplane is provided by private funding Edison was privately funded Tesla was privately funded somehow people forget all that they only look at what has been funded by the state assuming somehow that that wouldn't have been funded but I would say to you that just as the private sector produced the airplane so the private sector would have produced distributed computing the internet if it only it hadn't been crowded out by government funding you say that NASA was incredibly expensive and produced little of value and I'm reminded of a lot of arguments that came up a little while back when I think NASA shut down the space shuttle program was it because and the argument was you know we this is very expensive we can't do it and it's not you know people would say we shouldn't be spending money on this because it's not producing things of concrete value but the response was often there is a huge value call it even like a spiritual value in these massive flights of exploration in reaching for the stars in trying to go beyond our planet in exploring and learning and that those are deeply central to what it means to be human and so we would be kind of less of a people we'd be less of a people we would be atrophying ourselves to if we stepped back from that and said look we're only going to spend money on these kinds of things that we know we're going to produce the internet and whatever else and if we stop looking beyond the horizons there's something like anti-human about that let's do the counterfactual what would have happened if the Second World War hadn't broken out? Moonee Goddard up in Massachusetts had developed all the fundamental technology that NASA and the Nazis then took over and his rockets were going up to 7,000 feet by 1940 he developed the liquid fuels he developed the gyroscopes he developed the whole thing and the only reason he didn't put the first artificial satellite into space sometime in the early 1940s 15 years before the Soviets did it was the Second World War broke out and he was pulled out of that and told the developer Bazooka because we needed the Bazooka to kill lots and lots of Germans but for that the philanthropic sector would have got the first and then of course once you got one in space then people like Richard Branson come in and develop all the sort of stuff that they wanted to do so what I think I'm saying here is if you look at things like the Palomar 200 inch telescopes and the fantastic investment in space that was felt by the philanthropists that you have described so beautifully I think those things would actually have been met by a sector I mean it's very hard to show anything in astronomy that wasn't actually funded independently by the private sector because what you've described really relate people respond to that and people like Bill Gates would be funding it if it wasn't being done for him by NASA I'm pretty sure about that Now in terms of whether or not this actually public funding of science contributing to economic growth contributing to better sands of living there's some pretty good data on this that pretty much shows that it doesn't correct the OECD studies that have shown it's quite good talking a little bit about how that data what it shows and how clear it shows it It's really important because it shows it beautifully the OECD did a study called Sources of Growth in OECD Countries 2003 that's what it's called and it was published in 2003 and it's on the web and they looked at the 21 leading countries of the world the 21 members of the OECD and they looked over a 26 year period and they simply did a very careful multivariate analysis and of course they had such a long period of time as longitudinal so they were able to say country A in 1978 does that what does this GDP look like 5 years later 10 years later 20 years later so they were able to get to the nearest you can with cause and effect what they found and they looked at a whole host of parameters OECD has a vast amount of data available to it and many of the parameters they looked at was the public and private funding of research and development R&D is bigger than just science it also incorporates industrial research as well as academic science and the finding was dramatic and because it wasn't expected by the OECD and it's indeed it wasn't welcomed by the OECD it has much more value because this wasn't we're not talking about confirmation bias here this was lack of confirmation bias which upset everyone and what they found very dramatically the first to do that there's an individual in the city called Park at American University looking at the same data came up with the same findings and indeed I had myself at the same time as well but what the OECD did more comprehensive than anyone else they showed that there was a direct correlation between the degree of private funding of R&D and subsequent economic growth there was zero correlation between public funding of R&D and subsequent economic growth in fact they suggested there was a slightly negative correlation it looked as if the public funding of research and development actually slightly damaged economic growth presumably by crowding out private funding or by pulling privately funded researchers out of the private sector into the public sector where they may have done very nice science but it didn't benefit anyone economically and that is a really damaging attack on the concept of science of public good there are other damaging attacks but that's a particularly powerful one and so we have this National Science Foundation we have this pretty good idea that we are created in the in the scientists giving science grants and we've talked about lobbyists in different industries you know creating and influencing how the science is being done what is the National Science Foundation the question I think is what is the harm other than the resources taken out of society but some say oh you libertarians are always talking about that you're always talking about no taxation takes resource out of society the National Science Foundation I don't know what the budget is I'm sure it's very small it's a rounding error in the US budget compared to Social Security and Medicare and military spending so what's the harm well that's a fair question I think the number of the harm you're absolutely right the NSF and NIH obviously do good work and to some extent they're simply doing work that would otherwise have been done anyway in the private sector tough for the researchers and therefore they have to produce high quality science I think the harm is a symbolic harm really it gives the impression to society at large that without government we wouldn't have science and also perhaps more importantly because everyone understands the link between science and economic growth it also suggests that without government we wouldn't have economic growth and so it's damaging at a spiritual level really because it means that we are handing over government the belief that good things, good cultural things and good economic things can be delivered only by government it therefore empowers government and in this country more than any in the world founded by people deeply skeptical of central government it actually hits at the very root of what made the United States America the United States America United States America is all about the individual or the state but certainly not about the federal government but what we've done is we've legitimized federal government in a really important area of life you were talking earlier about the spiritual benefits of going to the moon and stuff if those are all captured by the government then actually in a funny sort of way the individual is minimized and government is legitimized let me for example give you an example the sequence in the human genome that was a largely private sector activity in Britain it was largely funded by the World Contrast which was a huge charity in this country it was funded as much by Craig Venter as it was actually by NSF and NIH but who declared the triumph in 2000 it was Tony Blair and Bill Clinton standing together on the podium which is connected simultaneously on different podiums but it came out to the world as one image celebrating this as if it was a government funded program ultimately legitimizing Bill Clinton and Tony Blair well you know I don't want to legitimize Bill Clinton and Tony Blair more than they deserve that. I'm curious about different avenues of research and how they might play with public versus private funding so are there areas if we have a lot of public funding right now that we're not getting as much research in as we might if things were more privately funded that there might be benefits for us pursuing those paths and then the flip side are there if we got rid of public funding are there areas of science that we would expect to see dry up as a result? Well I think with public funding you do get significant misappropriation of funds I mean if you think the purpose of science is to benefit society there's no question that the marketplace ultimately tells us what society needs better than do inward looking group societies what inward looking group societies do take public money and they work out the most interesting science that's available to them and they go into that and of course as we've agreed it's high quality and it's not without its value but it's not what the private sector would have been funding I mean for example NIH has received I don't know how many trillions of dollars over the last 50 years and yet we actually are in a situation where the drug companies are producing fewer and fewer new drugs something has gone wrong with that funding into NIH because where are the new drugs they're certainly not coming out of NIH and so I think that what has happened is that science is being driven by the priorities of scientists who have been allowed to work unchecked really by the needs of society and I would like to see I believe that if the NIH didn't exist we would certainly have more R&D taking place within more drug companies and I think that benefits human health would actually be better because drug companies do invest a great deal in pure science it's simply not true that they would neglect pure science so I think the answer to your question is by having government funded science and again I almost go back to Truman we're getting into a situation where you have to use a cliche in Ivory Tire of scientists funding other scientists for science that they think is the most interesting looking at the opportunities available to them but it does get divorced from the needs of society we need more drugs and there are very few of them coming out of the antibiotics, there hasn't been a new antibiotic for 20 years that is not reflecting society's best interest and it seems that we could imagine the results the inputs and the pressures being skewed towards certain things and we think about medical science for example AIDS research heavily funded because AIDS became very politically a very political thing in proportion to other diseases that maybe don't have the same level of political will behind it so maybe we could say that AIDS research was overfunded compared to cancer that the politics push it in that direction and create a skewed system and maybe with global warming and stuff too we see it today in Ebola we all know about the deaths in Ebola in Africa but at the same time every day for every patient who dies from Ebola sadly two patients are dying from malaria and we've known that for a very, very long time and so you're absolutely right AIDS was deeply politicized a huge amount of money went into AIDS and actually to be fair fantastic benefits came out of it I mean AIDS is a completely different disease and it was 30 years ago, 40 years ago well 30 years ago, astonishing but AIDS could also have been handled at a different level I mean epidemiologically people could have been more careful about practices, their private practices and also about blood transfusions and things so there were a number of different ways that disease could have been addressed yes I think AIDS did receive disproportionate amount of public funding on the other hand to be fair to AIDS it has worked remarkably well and whether industry alone would have done it as effectively I think the answer I'd have to say to be honest would be no but whether the number of AIDS sufferers in this country would have reflected the proportion of the investment probably not because of course AIDS became very sexy in terms of science the scientists have first discovered the virus got the Nobel Prize and all that sort of thing because it captured a sort of public mood it's a difficult question it's a difficult question but the analogy may do Ebola as I think a good one because on a market driven research if you were creating a product to make people's lives better well there's far more bigger consumer base of malaria sufferers than Ebola sufferers you couldn't create a business around Ebola drugs by themselves which is maybe a demonstration that it's not where you should be putting your efforts you could sell a lot of Ebola vaccines to panicked Americans yes that is true so maybe you could but maybe that just demonstrates that that's not where you should be putting your efforts not Ebola you should be looking at influenza and malaria things that don't get wall to wall media coverage well sure that's true these neglected diseases I mean to be fair to the scientific community there is a lot of malaria research there are no opportunities no one can understand the scientists can't understand how you handle this because you know as you know the malaria organism is very clever at changing its antigens all the time and so if there were better opportunities there I'm sure the scientific community would have moved in there more but there is a vast potential market for malaria but it could definitely be left to the private sector when the opportunities arose as for Ebola I mean the tragedy about Ebola yes of course vaccines and stuff are very important but actually you control Ebola just by better public health measures in fact it's a reflection of the poverty of those societies unfortunately and in the other instance too I know that our colleague Pat Michaels in front of all of ours I mean he definitely thinks that government funding of climate change research in a one specific way and not toward another side is skewing the results in a way that's undesirable for truth and it seems like that's the kind of thing we would expect it to be pushing in one direction oh he's absolutely right I mean climate gauge you know when they discovered all those emails it was very clear he was a group of scientists absolutely determined to defend their funding and governments have it's strange really how governments have bought into the global warming so comprehensively I think they've done so because it really legitimizes the role of government I mean really only government could address these issues carbon taxing and all the rest of it and so government had a very strong interest in global warming being a really serious issue because it puts politicians centre stage and there is no doubt that the whole global warming community is very much biased towards one direction so if you challenge it you know you're called a denier with all the overturns that that has and you're not going to get government funding and you certainly won't get government funding and you have difficulty publishing your papers I mean I have always believed long long ago this is why Pat and I get on so well that the best analogy we have with global warming is the scare over eugenics eugenics is a really terrible story and between 1900 and 1945 I mean in this country in the United States of America something like I mean in the state of California alone a hundred thousand mentally defective people were compulsory sterilized against their will in that 45 year period and lots of other appalling things took place in the name of eugenics in America in Scandinavia forget what happened under the Nazis but under huge tracts of Europe and North America eugenics legitimized some really dreadful practices you had people like H.G. Wells or George Bernard Shaw actively advocating the gassing and elimination of genetically inferior people can you imagine, can you imagine D.H. Lawrence actually said thank god for poison gas I mean the culture the atmosphere out of which Hitler did was actually being laid out by western scientists and western thinkers I repeat D.H. Lawrence H.G. Wells, Bernard Shaw really top public intellectuals advocating the elimination of people who carried the wrong genes and out of that you get a very unfortunate culture that Hitler was not a unique person he was responding to his culture and that's very dangerous and I think global warming is in the same area of a group of scientists who can see real benefit to their own research with politicians who can see real benefit to themselves feeding on each other to create this mass panic after all it's not at all clear and I'm sure there is global warming I'm not at all sure it's a bad thing I'm not at all sure it's anthropogenic either but in as much as it is it's more good than harm You say that government funding government will prefer that people that people's research supports things that then government wants to do so if your research says government should get involved and stop this problem then that's the kind of thing that gets more funding I'm curious how that plays in with one of the biases we hear about in scientific research more broadly which is the bias towards positive results but if you do a study and find a positive correlation that's much more... Yeah, cancer from coffee or something like that You find that coffee causes cancer that's much more likely to get published than you find that coffee does not cause cancer Which is just as important as the positive results And this happens across science but would public or private funding make that problem better or worse? Well it's a problem that comes out of competitive grant awards because grant giving bodies are simply I mean I think this is much an internal scientific problem as one caused by government funding The question is if you apply for funds in the competitive way who's going to get those funds and the scientist who makes a positive discovery somehow captures the imagination of his fellow scientists or her fellow scientists or the grant giving bodies So I think that is frankly the consequence of competitive funding of science and it might just be the cost of doing science I'm not quite sure how you address it except that you as a community as a scientific community can recognize that this is a tremendous skewing and that negative results should be published just as fully Now to be fair there's a huge move to register surveys like this in advance and make sure they're always being published. It comes out of the corruptions of the pharmaceutical industry and the pharmaceutical industry has done some bad things I mean who hasn't, we all do bad things and the pharmaceutical industry has certainly done bad things so for example one of the tricks the pharmaceutical industry got up to let's say you got a drug A which is probably not very good for a disease B actually probably slightly damages it but if you commission ten different surveys then about seven of those surveys will show it's done you harm a couple of surveys will show nothing but one might show benefit in the nature of statistical error that's the one you publish and so in response to that there's a huge move now that all these processes all these surveys should be registered in advance and there's an obligation on you to publish the findings whatever they are and perhaps that should go across the board so the scientific community can address its own problems that everything should be published including negative findings but it's of course it's accentuated and aggravated not so much by government funding of competitive grants but by the shared process of having competitive grants just look at this and say what does the world look like without public funding of science and why is it a better place there are two answers to that the first one is the world without the government funding of science empowers the individual more it means that individuals as individuals but also individual corporations individual universities do not feel in any sense that they are inferior to the state we don't have a situation where the state is legitimized because only it confronts us and for me that's a major cultural thing I do not want to legitimize the state because it's an organization that uses coercion beyond that which it absolutely needs to do that's why I'm a libertarian so anything that legitimizes the state if it's not necessary I'm opposed to and since the state does not have the fund science I would prefer a world in which the state funded no science and that was an area of legitimization that was lost to the state what would science look like well the universities wouldn't do so much research there's no question about that there would be much more research than they otherwise would have done they would therefore focus much more on teaching they would still do research and they would still have PhD students to train people up to become the scientists of the future but they wouldn't be turning themselves places like Harvard, Yale and Princeton practically research institutions with a few undergraduates attached and you could argue that's real distortion of what the emission of this institution should be so there would be much less research taking place in universities but there would still be sufficient because we know that from pre-1940 to train all the scientists that society needs there would be much more science taking place in industry in companies but there would also be more philanthropic science there would be more Gates foundations around and I would argue that that would be a healthier mix of research because one of the things you've really got to avoid and what we have unfortunately to some extent in this country but also in Europe is NIH and NSF have too much power too much monopolistic power imposing too much one particular vision on the world and you get a much healthier scientific community there are lots of competing funding bodies with their own different cultures you're more likely to get a richer mix of science with a complex mixture of funding bodies Thank you for listening to Free Thoughts if you have any questions or comments about today's show you can find us on Twitter at Free Thoughts Pod that's Free Thoughts P-O-D Free Thoughts is a project of Libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute and is produced by Evan Banks To learn more about Libertarianism visit us on the web at www.libertarianism.org


you finding life rather dull dreaming again of exotic places wishing you were somewhere else we offer you escape escape with us now to Mexico City and the story of a man caught up in a terrifying web of murderous intrigue as Patrick Quentin tells it in his exciting story the follower my name is Litten Mark Litten I'm a petroleum engineer just back from three months in Venezuela I hadn't cabled my wife that I was coming home to New York because I wanted to surprise her we'd only been married two weeks Ellie and I before I went on the trip and I was crazy to get back to three long empty months and now in a matter of seconds we'll be together again Ellie Ellie it's me Mark Ellie Ellie are you here oh let's cut out the comedy to hey who are you what's the matter what's wrong with you when he would Corey good lord it was the guy Ellie had thrown over to marry me Corey Lathrop and he was dead I saw the two bullet holes in his chest turned sick he'd been dead quite a while maybe a day or two and he didn't look much like the socialite man about the club's member of the state parole board society lawyer he just looked dead I recognized that torn piece of negligee in Corey's hand I ought to I'd seen it often enough on Ellie first thing that to do was locate her fast no no not the police not yet not without knowing what it's all about who else then certainly not her society friends they wouldn't tell me if they knew I was an outsider big prospects but no money the dark horse who'd rushed Ellie off her feet now no chance there maybe some of her other friends though she messed around with just for thrills because she was rich and bored maybe the gambler Victor tutorial yeah that was it anybody knew what had happened to Ellie Victor would be the guy really beat the odds mr. Litten very few people I'd let come back here to my private office oh thanks Victor of course you're different though you're married a little Ellie I do anything for Ellie how is she by the way I was hoping maybe you'd know now why would I know anything about it you're a friend of hers aren't you well you sure I knew wellie long before she met you it's a great little kid too much money for her own good but still you know where she is Victor no I don't but she wasn't here a couple of nights ago sorry one of the roulette tables Ellie sure has a weakness for roulette yeah well I can't remember now that was a night she got into me on credit for $20,000 $20,000 I guess the guy she was with was bad luck for her that knows in the air what was his name Lathrop Corey Lathrop Lathrop somebody ought to smash that guy he's just too good to live yeah yeah yeah look Victor about that money Ellie oh don't worry I had about mr. Litten Ellie's a friend of mine she'll pay when she gets the dough you know these little cafe cookies understand gambling how it works and they always pay off every one of them pays in the end back at the apartment again I sat in the den smoking one cigarette after another tried to think it out started to get dark and I still sat there not knowing where to turn stopped cool hello may I speak to a mrs. little please well she isn't here right now may I take a message I'm mr. Litten oh well this is Franchot's originals mr. little we have those two new suits ready to send out and I find a note here with him it is a request to forward the suits by her mail to hotel Granada Mexico City Mexico City oh we Mrs. Lidon evidently telephones the message but I did want to confirm the address is that correct mr. Lidon hotel Granada Mexico City yes yes that's right she flew down there for a few days I'm nice I do hope that she enjoys her trip well I I'm sure she will goodbye Mexico City so that's where she'd gone well whatever the game I was sure of one thing I was on her side when loser draw that meant following her on the next plane south to Mexico City from the airport I phoned the police told them where they'd find Corey's body and hung up I beg your pardon is the desk clerk around for a sis and you are I am the desk clerk can I help you senior yes I believe my wife is registered here Mrs. Mark Lidon Lidon that is not a very common name senior no I guess it isn't well that is a very nice jacket you are wearing senior soft and warm like the breath of a senior thank you thank you it must take many pesos to buy a jacket like that I really don't remember now if you'll be kind enough it must be very nice to have many pesos look what are you after a tip senior how much well you're in a pobrecito has five sisters to support and only one very small job 20 pesos 10 15 it is only pesos and you are not like dollars all right all right here gracias now we are friends the seniorita is registered in room 522 522 okay thanks but wait senior what she is not there now oh where is she the seniorita is go to the bullfights I think but no matter senior you are her husband you are my very good friend so I let you wait in her room for only 10 pesos more look if you like golden eggs don't kill the goose but senior you do not look at things the right way for only 25 pesos you now have Oscar for your very good friend Oscar sent a bellboy up to let me end a 522 when it gone I open the two traveling cases in the closet and search through a mess of clothes and the usual feminine what not I don't know what I'd expected to find in Ellie's luggage blood stains are gone I I don't know and then I heard the key in the lock I didn't move I didn't say anything Ellie baby who the devil are you I could ask the same question with a lot more reason to will you get out now or shall I call the manager look there must be some mistake here there certainly is this is room 522 and my wife's clothes are in those bags you've been going through my things your things not unless you happen to be Mrs. Mark Litten that's exactly who I happen to be on our wait a minute honey I'm Mark Litten oh please that's a real old one and I'm just not in the mood I'm Mark Litten no matter what and you're impersonating my wife I'm Mrs. Mark Litten and you're trying to impersonate my husband now get out or so help me I'll phone the manager wait let me make a call first just so happens I know the Spanish words for police and American Embassy you wouldn't I wouldn't huh hello wait no don't okay now what's the game where's Ellie I don't know I've never met your wife I was desperate that's all and when the chance came along I took what chance what were you desperate about I'd come down here for a week and got stuck I didn't know you needed papers to get back across the border proof of citizenship I mean you see I've lived in New York all my life but I was born in Czechoslovakia go on well I was broke too I didn't know what to do that's when I ran into this bartender George and he fixed everything up fixed it up how well he said this Mrs. Litten your wife it just got in from the States and wanted to disappear for a few days she was looking for somebody to take her place here at the hotel so George arranged the whole thing brought me here gave me her tourist card that's all I know about it what were you supposed to get out of the deal just the tourist card I could use it to cross the border Mrs. Litten was going to say later she'd lost it and get a new one anyway that's what George said George huh where does this George work well it's one of the American bars he's off duty now though why can I find him well sometimes he hangs around the salon did his boards a cantina over near the plaza look if this is all the truth how come nobody here at the hotel noticed the switch when you took my wife's place she checked in during the night and stayed out of sight no one's seen her but the night clerk Oscar I think his name is Oscar that boy really gets around he's the day man now Mr. Litten what are you gonna do with me I don't know yet what's your name Frankie okay come on Frankie let's go find George there he is Mr. Litten he just came in the short blonde guy looks like a man of rooster yes George over here George cocky and tough I know the George we've been waiting here for you I was beginning to think maybe you've been called back to work at the bar no I'm off duty this is Mr. Litten George Mr. Mark Litten from New York oh okay if I sit down sure George that's the idea hey I suppose you're looking for your wife that's right what is she you've been away somewhere haven't you out of the States yeah and your wife wasn't expecting a back so soon no she wasn't well I'm afraid you're out of luck Mr. Litten she took a plane to Guatemala this afternoon no no no you wouldn't be lying with you George don't push me Mr. Litten your wife's missing and you're all upset about it but don't try to push me where is she George I just told you that's all I know about it I'm just a guy who helped her out of a jam what kind of a jam all I know is what she told me said she'd run out on a big gambling debt in New York and they were sending a gunman after her she had to get away you see that's where I came in Mr. Litten she wanted someone to take her place here cover up her trail how did she get out of Mexico when you've got her tourist card she had a passport with her she didn't need the card I see well I still think you're both lying oh Mr. Litten I warned you about you can do you're talking to the police in the American Embassy that's who I'm going to talk to don't be a fool Mr. Litten be a fool to believe the story of yours you don't know what it's all about you're not gonna do anything with this blundering around except get your wife killed go back to New York and stay out of it skip it Frankie when I want your advice up what's the idea of the gun George the idea Mr. Litten that all three of us get up from this table quietly and walk out of the canteen I see you're not going to the police Mr. Litten nor to the American Embassy you're coming with us suppose I don't you well shall we go sure why not a quietly Mr. Litten just like three friends sure George I'll go quietly all right now give me that gun give it to me all right now get up on your feet nice going Frankie come on George let's get out of here wait wait give me that bottle he's still conscious yeah George you didn't have to hit him again shut up Frankie we're in it too far to turn soft harder now come on let's go escape under the direction of Norman McDonald returns in just a moment the book of etiquette loses a lot more pages tonight when Jack Benny tries to ingratiate himself with a suave oh so social Ronald Coleman's yes Ronnie and Benita will be Jack's guests on CBS tonight and on the Charlie McCarthy Edgar Bergen comedy hour Charlie will try to enlist in the Air Force and end up as a skyrider advertising pumpernickel bread Red Skelton Amos and Andy Coralus Archer and Eve Arden as our miss Brooks will also be on hand on most of these same CBS stations with their famous brands of CBS Sunday Night Comedy and now back to escape when I came to a half-hour later Frankie and George were gone the only lead to LA I had gone and I left the canteen and flagged a taxi in the whole picture there was only one man who might be able to help me now I headed for the Hotel Granada and Oscar too bad too bad it is most unfortunate that you have such a very bad accident senior you should come to me I would have tell you this along the list boy she's not a good place for tourists Oscar you're a chiseler a liar and a crook senior that is a very bad way for friends to talk to each other you'd sell out your own mother for ten pesos you are what they call a very scenic man senior I would never do such a thing not for ten pesos why didn't you tell me there was another woman living here posing as my wife but you are her husband's senior and one must be very careful with husband Oscar I've played along with you as far as I'm going to I think it's time you talk the whole thing over with the police the police senior now you are not speaking like a friend and just when I was going to tell you about something for free tell me about what about the lady who is pretend to be your wife she has come here while you are gone what she reads a telegram which is come for mrs. Liedon then she has checked out of the hotel I didn't think she had the nerve to come back here maybe you like to know what the telegram is said huh it was not sealed so tight of course I'd like to know what the telephone all right all right how much 200 pesos for free huh okay here's 150 and that's all you get the telegram say plans changed go to hotel Casa Miranda a capulco a capulco who was it signed by it was only the one name Victor I hit my first lucky break in a capulco I came in from the airport and went to the Casa Miranda hotel and halfway across the lobby I ran into Frankie mr. Liedon what are you doing here looking for you how did you find out easy I'm one of Oscar's very good friends I'm not telling me where's George in Mexico City oh please mr.  Liedon are we ready to go yes yes I'm ready anytime senior goddess very well aren't you going to introduce me darling introduce you yes yes senior Gonzalez this is my husband Mark how do you do senior Gonzalez you just arrived unexpected I see and are you planning to go out to the villa with us mr. Liedon oh I don't think sure sure sure definitely I'm in on this too you know you know what is involved then well naturally the little woman always tells me everything and you have no objections well it's all right with her it's all right with me you are a very broad-minded man mr.  Liedon but I believe it is better that you don't come down to the boat house with us sure sure that's fine just make yourself comfortable mr. Liedon this they shouldn't take long all right belly baby what are you doing here mark mark it's wonderful you're here darling but you shouldn't have come what have they done to you baby nothing nothing mark I'm all right but you're not darling they'll kill you you've got to get out of here we'll both get out we've got time Frankie and Gonzalez have gone on down to the boat house yes I know you know yes Gonzalez phone from town they won't do anything to you if you leave right now Victor promised me Ellie what are you talking about I didn't want you to get mixed up in it mark I wanted it to be all over before you came back from Venezuela I think you better tell me what this game's all about I had to do it Victor made me do it I lost a lot of money at his club and he said if I didn't he'd kill me if you didn't she didn't what bring a load of dope across the border for him dope that's another one of his rackets along with gambling he gets it down here from Gonzalez so Victor hasn't been after you who've been on his side all the time but then what if Frankie and George come in they're both working for the police they kidnapped me from the hotel gave me drugs so Frankie could take my place and meet Gonzalez they plan to get the dope and Gonzalez delivered to Victor and then have the police move in on everybody I got away though phone Victor he came down here so that's why Frankie was impersonating you George used to be one of Victor's boys then he got sent to prison he just got out on parole it was through Corey he began working with the police Ellie tell me the truth you killed Corey didn't you I had to mark he was going to turn me in he was on the parole board and George reported to him so so he found out about me he's gonna turn me in all the time you've been in it up to your neck it'll be all right mark Victor'll fix it about Corey I mean we'll pretend it never happened just another thrill highly I've been crazy about you but I guess I haven't known you very well you know I thought this fooling around the clubs with Victor and the others was just bored little rich girl stuff but it goes a lot deeper than that doesn't darling I had to do this don't you understand what was I only just another thrill something different for a while no no that's why I did it for us I mean Victor was threatening me he'd have told you all all kinds of bad things about me that's why I had to is Victor down at the boat house yes what are they gonna do to Frankie I don't know they're gonna kill her aren't they why I suppose I don't know what's the difference anyway who cares she doesn't matter don't you see that it's us that counts that's why I did what I mark where you going to get her out of it if I can that's the least I can do no come back bye mark no no I ran down the driveway toward the boat house I was sick sick inside and all over sick from seeing Ellie the way she really was for the first time dazed with the shock they looked at me startled when I burst through the door Frankie pale but defiant sitting in a chair against the wall with Victor and Gonzales bending over it well there's quite a surprise mr.  Liddon I guess now you know that's right Frankie no I know that's too bad mr.  Liddon join the party thanks we're trying to get this little cookie to tell us where George is she doesn't wanna count to ten and then how about it honey I told you I don't know where he is mm-hmm it's too bad one two better talk Frankie three I stood there watching them trying to figure a play Victor held a gun pointed at Frankie's head and Gonzales probably carrying one six whatever the play it had to be fast seven eight nine Victor don't hurt him Victor Ellie he doesn't know what he's saying about trying to help Frankie I mean he's out of his head and says living you fool that's a game Victor swung the gun toward me Ellie jumped and wrapped his arm and hang on guns was just drawing his gun when I hit him and we both went down as he scrambled to get up I drew back my foot and kicked him in their head I fumbled on the floor for his gun and from the corner of my eyes so Victor turned his own gun point blank on Ellie busy turn toward me I was up on my knees Gonzales gun in my hand and I let him have it are you all right mr. Liddon yes Frankie I'm all right yeah baby Mark it would have worked out all right no sure Ellie course it would have we better get her to a doctor mr. Liddon I wanted it to please believe me I've done bad things Mark but I could have changed you sure honey I know I can go up to the house and phone for a doctor no she doesn't need a doctor she's dead that was it whatever Ellie was whatever she'd done I'd loved her more than anything else in the world a love like that becomes a part of you and even when it gets diseased has to be cut out it leaves a deep wound takes a long time to heal I'd known more about it I may have acted differently she might still be alive I don't know as it was I'd done the only thing I could I'd follow the I'd follow the clear to the end under the direction of Norman McDonald escape has brought you the follower by Patrick Quentin especially adapted for escape by Les Crutchfield Bill Conrad was starred as Mark Liddon featured in the cast where Georgia Ellis Harry Bartell Virginia Greg Luke Krugman Sydney Miller and Don Diamond the special music for escape was composed and conducted by Del Castillo in just a moment we're going to ask you to stay tuned for Bill Goodwin and dollar a minute but that reminds us that starting next Sunday dollar a minute will move back a half hour and be heard on most of these same CBS stations at this time that is the time you've been listening to escape today the new addition to the CBS Sunday afternoon line up next Sunday will be Rachel mate the comedy quiz starring Joey Adams so now stay tuned for Bill Goodwin and dollar a minute which follows immediately on most of these same CBS stations today and will be heard a half hour earlier next Sunday this is Roy Rowan speaking this is CD as the Columbia broadcasting system


Webmasters, SEOs, Publishers, and Web Developers. Listen up! Make sure to stay tuned for our upcoming video series. Here on the Webmasters YouTube channel, Webmaster Conference Lightning Talks. We will be releasing shortened but still information-packed talks that we normally deliver at the Webmaster conferences around the world. The talks will include our presentations, will be subtitled in many languages, and will be delivered by us, the Webmaster team. Look forward to talks such as mine on links in JavaScript, or mine on HTTPS, or my structured data and search console talk, or my Google monetized policy talk. We'll be releasing the talks throughout the year starting this month. Subscribe to our channel, and don't miss a single Webmaster Conference Lightning Talk. See you there!


This is a two box half case break. PYT number six guys, the second half of the case. And again, with a little hit list promo here. So if you do go hit list with your team guys, you'll be in a randomizer. Top four names win $50 and break her to back. And this break sold out straight up guys. So thank you to everybody that got in. Nancy got the Rangers and Ray's last two teams. The last one was the Rangers, so good luck Nancy there. And of course, another one of these breaks here. Again, obviously it's always fun and exciting to rip these, but now there's only two hits a box. So a lot of people are really hoping and praying that they get the hit. So hopefully you do. All right, first we got here stat leaders and world series champions. Those are cool little stats here. Who's going to be the world series champion guys? Any guesses? Hey Nancy, how are you? World series champions, you'll call it. No, I mean, the player for Sterling. Oh, the category. I love the Dodgers. I'll show you. Derek Geert, stat leaders is the next one. Rock crew. Rock crew. Jeter Rock crew. Let's go to World Series Champ first. I've been doing okay Nancy, how about you? All right, here we go, World Series Champ first. Whoa, I think this is a dual auto or not. It's a one-of-one, a Dolis Garcia. And how about Texas Rangers last spot mojo? He is a World Series champ. Nancy. How are you doing now? There you go. Oh my God, Nancy. That is scary. Very nice. Oakland. Zach Gelloff. Wait, that wasn't stat leaders? What did he leave in stats? Zach made an unbroken progress at the journey of the athletic system in second round MLB pedraft pick. In 2020, he just slugged 6-10 in his first 35 big league games in 2023. I guess it was a stat leader. All right, well, Oakland's going to Eugene. All right, last one. 2020 MLB All-Stars in top's All-Star rookie cup team. Let's go with the rookie cup team first. Backwards, sideways. Wow, another Bobby Witt in the same case. How lucky is Chris in the Royals? 10 out of 25. I heard he had two home runs today. That's probably why he came out twice in this case. Why is the color so off? Jesus. What? Didn't we hit a Juan Soto and a Bobby Witt Jr. in the first box? How about another one? Dan with the Padres. I'm not sure if Dan had the Padres twice.  Is that the same correlation? Anytime you get a Soto, there's gonna be a Bobby Witt vice versa? That's pretty trippy. Yeah, it's definitely deja vu, for sure. Except the Bobby Witt was out of five. Well, there you go with player correlation. Can't glitch in the matrix. All righty, guys, well, I'm sorry. I mean, obviously I was hoping for different teams, potentially, but I mean, I guess it is a second half of the case, so who knows? But Juan Soto, Bobby Witt Jr., and Gelov, and then a one-on-one of Dolos Garcia. So let's switch on scenes and let's give away some money, at least. So let's paste that there. No, I know Nancy, it's okay. Nancy with the Rangers, and then we had, of course, Padres again, and then Oakland Eugene. Wait, was there an Oakland A in the first one too? It was Miami and Atlanta, actually, sorry. Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do. Four and a six, 10 times. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Four, six, ten. Allen, Rob, Jerry, and Greg. So I'll send you guys out $50 in break credit, guys, using it on whatever you guys like. Thank you, guys, jaskiescasebricks.com.


What is up welcome to my channel for today's video I'm going to be trying out for you each of the new products from the Patrick Todd major headlines collection So if you're interested in hearing my thoughts on them, then just keep watching So I'm actually getting ready right now to go out to dinner for the first time in Months and I thought it was a perfect opportunity to play with my new Patrick Todd things If you didn't know he came out with a new collection called the major headlines collection It is currently available right now on Sephora and the Patrick Todd website itself So he came out with three different products to which are completely new to his line We have the double-take cream and powder blush duo and then we have a matte suede Lipstick and then this product already exists But he did release new colors and this is the precision lip crayon going to get into each item Individually so I do want to start off with the blush because I think this is what most people were Excited about so this is a thirty four dollars It comes in four finishes and my first impression of this collection Was that it was colors that were going to be too deep for me or for the lips Especially just the colors were too dark and bright He had like red colors a berry color and just colors that I wouldn't wear on a daily basis So I only got colors that I thought I would wear the blush shades all looked really deep online and the swatches as well So I picked up a pink shade which I thought would match my color now and now thanks to YouTube Of course after seeing all of the reviews it does seem that the colors will work for my skin tone Just from what I can tell they definitely appear lighter in person than they do online So that might be something to keep in mind I did only end up going for she's that girl and this is supposed to be a soft pink They also have a coral color a plum color which that one I think is definitely more for deeper Complexions and then a bronze nude that one. I didn't think would work for me But honestly after seeing other reviews. I do think that one would work for me. She's that girl I love a pink cheek so I had to get it So the packaging is beautiful mirrored packaging which is really hard for product shots I couldn't get a good one and it took me a while to figure out how to open this It kind of has Tom Ford packaging but it's clipped in really hard So I had to pull it and then you have the two products and you guys see how cute she is Untouched this is a complete first impression So we have the pink blush and then I love when products have a screen so that the powder doesn't get into the cream Product I have one other blush from Patrick's how this is she's sincere And I was a little bit skeptical about this product because I'm not the biggest fan of his powder blush line I think they're okay. They get the job done But for me they take a little bit too much building up for my preferences So I did hear that the formula of the powder is more pigmented So we'll see about that but as you can see from she's sincere this one is much more bright Yeah, so this color does seem to have more pigmentation and the she's sincere and then let me get into the cream It feels nice and creamy and it does not seem to be too pigmented It does seem pretty sheer so the one with the extra shine is going to be the cream If you watch Patrick tell us tutorial on YouTube He actually suggests that you put the powder down first and then you put the cream on top That definitely goes against the grain of everything you've probably learned about makeup They say you definitely want to put creams down first and then powders on top to set I don't know the science behind why he said to put the powder down first other than he said it lays down a base I'm gonna do the powder down first on one side and the cream down first on the other So let's just try it. I'm using this old Trish McAvoy brush And I'm just gonna go into the powder and I'm not getting a lot of like fallout or anything from it That deposits literally the perfect amount of pigment So this is definitely more pigmented than that original formula or I don't know if it's the color But I'm not complaining about the pigmentation here, and it's a really beautiful blush I do have a slight sheen to my face I am wearing a tinted moisturizer so that could play a role in it being slightly more glowy But there is a slight sheen. It's a matte blush, but it's not Mattifying my face so that glow is peeking through which is a really nice thing to look for in a blush formula That's really pretty now I'm going to try the cream blush first and I always like to apply cream blush with a sponge I'm using this Kaleidos sponge and I love how this is not depositing too much color It is a sheer formula, but it is building up as well I did do a double dip and it has added more my hair is all up in the way Here's a closer look so that you can see I love how blended and natural this looks in the cheek This is why I love cream blushes where of course the powder is really nice as well But there is something a little bit more natural about a cream blush But I love this cream blush all on its own It's a little bit tacky on the face if you don't want to you do not have to layer these You are fine just having a powder option and a cream option and depending on your preferences I am going to layer since that's what is recommended just to try this product out But don't feel obligated to do so so we are going to put the cream on top This is kind of the non-traditional way and this is gonna build up the pigmentation to even brighter than I probably wanted I'm gonna put some on my nose and this is a good cream formula. It's not disturbing the powders underneath It's not a thick formula. It's those thicker cream formulas that are really going to have a hard time over powders But if you use a sponge 99% of the time you won't notice too much of an issue especially if it's a nice lightweight formula like this He has a very good cream formula here And that did add a little bit of a sheen and then I'm gonna put the powder on top on this side to see if Maybe it creates a more mattified look. I mean both sides look equally as pretty I do think maybe this side is a little bit more matted down because it has the powder on top But you can apply it any way that you want honestly I'm leaning towards the cream product first because I feel like it really blends the color in and then putting the powder on Top's going to make that color last longer So I think it looks more natural if you put the cream down first it blends into the skin better It does look good with the cream on top as well And I'm going to imagine if you want more of that cream finish, but you still want it to last longer You might want to put the powder down first I don't know Scientifically that can be proven that it's gonna make it last longer, but that would kind of be my theory behind it I don't think you're limited to use this in any way that you want do whatever you want You could use only the powder if you want only the cream if you want you could layer however you want in whatever order I I think the product is good overall and it's going to work for you And that is what makes a good product a good product. It works. However, you want to use it I actually am really liking the blush. Do I think it's very good I think it's a step up from his regular powder blushes and it looks gorgeous on the cheek and for $34 for getting two different options I actually think that's a good deal and if I wasn't on a low buy I would definitely go back and purchase more because I think she's really cute So let's move on to the lip products. The lip colors are different from the blush colors Name-wise you actually have a lip liner and lipstick duo with the same name Of course, you're not limited to purchasing those but I did want to buy matching products So I ended up going with the nude color of course because I'm boring and I got oh she single Which is a neutral nude. There's also like a hot red orange a red shade and then a really deep eggplant berry shade I don't like the packaging of these because once you push it up You can't put the product back down so beware of that But I actually really enjoy these lip pencils a lot. Take a look at the shape I find it very easy to maneuver on the lips. The formula is a bit dry, but it's nothing crazy I have no problems putting just the lip liner all over my lips Maybe a little gloss on top and it's fine. So I'm gonna compare the color that I have from previous launches So this is she's proud. This is an old color. It's kind of like a muted nude pink I'm gonna compare it to this new color, which is oh she's single This is a lot deeper and a lot more brown So this is oh she single and this is she's proud So this is definitely a lot deeper all the lip colors very bold in this line So I'm gonna put this on This is not gonna go with my blush The she's so la blush duo is what's going to go best with this lip combo But I just love pink blush. I had to get that one Even though I said this formula is a little drying It's actually kind of not like it's a lip liner. So naturally it's drying But it's applying really smooth to the lips and like I said, I really enjoy the shape of this Very nice. If you like browns, you really might like this a lot If I forgot to mention this, this is $26 by the way, I think it's a very good product I don't think these are necessarily worth the price because $26 is a lot for a lip liner When Colourpop has a great selection But I do enjoy just the really mirrored packaging, the experience of it all So obviously I do think it's worth it since I did purchase another one But in the grams game of things, you don't need it And let's move on to the matte suede lipstick I feel like this was an interesting time to come out with a matte lipstick Given that it's summer, this is $32, so not a cheap lipstick She's slightly competitive with some luxury babies $32, the same exact colors as the lip liners So I got the corresponding oh she single I must say the packaging on these are exquisite I want more, just so aesthetic-y, really gorgeous, really simple It's a class, not a magnet, which if we had a magnet then it would totally be luck It has that velvet finish, this is a fresh, untouched lipstick Really gorgeous, so let's put her on Nice formula Out of curiosity, where is this made in? Made in the USA I was curious if it was going to be an Italian formula The blush and the lipstick are made in the USA And then the lip liner is actually made in South Korea That's really pretty, I love this lip duo This is my kind of lip color I really like that, I wish my cheeks weren't so bright I mean it's a matte formula, so it's a little bit drying Like I would like a gloss on top But the color is very very nice So it was a nice smooth application It's not as smooth as say Charlotte Tilbury Or Gucci by any means But it's a good solid lipstick formula I mean it's a lipstick, I don't know Alright so I'm gonna back out and kind of give you all my final thoughts So I do really enjoy how everything is looking right now I think this blush duo is probably the best product that I personally experienced from his line I really like this, I think he has a very solid formula I liked the powder blush And I thought that the cream formula was very beautiful It was just sheer enough, but just pigmented enough It blended out onto the cheek with ease And I like having the option of doing cream and powder Or doing cream or powder So I think these are definitely worth it I am very interested in picking up a couple other shades As far as the lip liner goes, I think he has a very nice lip liner formula It applies very smooth if you like any of the colors I'm not gonna tell you not to get it because they are good I spend a lot of money on makeup so I have no room to say this But you're not missing out on anything if you don't pick these up Because they aren't super unique colors or super unique formula But it's a well-rounded nice lip liner and I like the shape of it So I do enjoy it and I like the color that I got It's gonna go with a lot of other colors that I have in my collection And then the lipstick what is really taking me to a happy place is this packaging I think the packaging is just gorgeous And I don't think the lipstick is anything special $32, that's your call I do like the color a lot I'm not in love with the other colors that he currently has So I won't be picking anymore up However, if he comes out with more colors that I like And I see myself actually wearing a lot I definitely would consider purchasing more So everything he came out with for this launch really good Take a look, see if there's a color that you like Definitely gets my stamp of approval Thank you guys so much for watching this video I hope you enjoyed it If you aren't subscribed to my channel already I would absolutely love if you would take the time to do so And I will see you guys in the next one Bye guys, have a good one


Thank you, Chairperson, Secretary General of the ITU, your excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, allow me on behalf of the South African delegation to join the speakers that came before us in thanking the government and the people of Argentina for the welcome and generous hospitality we've received and continue to enjoy this beautiful city. Chairperson, allow me to also take this opportunity to offer congratulations to you on your election as Chairperson of the conference. We are indeed confident that we are incapable and good hands. We also express our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for the efforts made by the ITU Secretary General, the Director of the ITU Telecommunications Development Bureau, and the management and staff in successfully convening this conference timeously and in advance. Ladies and gentlemen, the theme of this conference is very much aligned to our National Development Plan 2030 as well as the African Union Agenda of 2063, that of building an information society and knowledge-based economy to drive inclusive growth for all nations. We all know that ICTs and broadband in particular have the potential to transform sectors and accelerate progress thereby bringing us closer to achieving the SDGs. I am certain that over the two weeks we will identify strategies and programs to enhance the achievement of the SDGs, but also promote digital inclusion, accessibility, gender, and capacity building so that nations become more equal. As the African region, we call on the ITU and all international partners to put more resources and capacity on development of strategies and programs to ensure equitable access to internet, innovation, and development, as well as to strengthening ICT security. In South Africa, 48 percent of our citizens, which is an estimate of 22 million people, are not yet connected into the internet. Through our national government priorities, such as the Nine Point Plan, the broadband national policy, and the ICT policy, we are implementing strategies to ensure maximum socioeconomic inclusion, focusing on digital skills as well as supporting small business, youth, and women on digital entrepreneurship in order to minimize the digital divide and ensure radical economic transformation through wider active participation in the digital economy. In May this year, we also adopted the Internet for All Initiative, which seeks to address matters and barriers to universal internet access through partnerships, coordination, and collaboration between public, private, multilateral, and non-profit organizations. Honorable Cheperson, South Africa views ICTs, especially the internet, as important and integral to reducing socioeconomic inequalities. Therefore, WTDC17 is expected to provide the world with a new paradigm and alternative vision for increased infrastructure connectivity, diffusion of devices, local content, and skills development. Distinguished guests, October has been dedicated as the Cyber Security Month. The aim is to raise awareness of cybersecurity threats, promote cybersecurity among citizens and organizations, provide resources so that citizens can protect themselves online through education and sharing of good practices. As South Africa, we are happy to announce that we have a national policy and an established cybersecurity hub, which provides information and creates awareness on cybersecurity, so as to encourage South African citizens and organizations to be secure online. My dear brothers and sisters, you will recall that our world leaders entrusted the ITU to be the facilitator of the WSIS Action Line C5, Building Confidence and Security in the Use of ICTs. To ensure maximum effectiveness of this goal, we encourage you to strengthen international cooperation on the basis of a framework established within the remit of the ITU. Cheperson, South Africa remains committed to contributing to the work of this union, and in this regard, we'll be presenting her candidature for the ITU Council during the Pentecostal Conference in the UAE in 2018. We humbly seek your support in this regard. We look forward to cooperating with the ITU community in order to make this important conference a success, and these outcomes contribute to social upliftment of our countries, regions, and global community. Together, we can move the world forward. Thank you in advance.