The First Map of How Our Brain Organizes Everything We See

by Monica Diana Bercea

NeuroRelay
December 27, 2012

A research published in the Cell Press journal Neuron on the 20th of December 2012 (Alexander G. Huth, Shinji Nishimoto, An T. Vu, Jack L. Gallant. "A Continuous Semantic Space Describes the Representation of Thousands of Object and Action Categories across the Human Brain." Neuron, 2012; 76 (6): 1210) describes the first developed map of how our brain sorts everything we see.

While neuromarketers aim to understand how people make sense of the thousands of advertisements that flood their retinas each day, scientists at the University of California have found that the brain is wired to put in order all the categories of objects and actions that we see. They have created the first interactive map of how the brain organizes these groupings, and you may see it below (it looks like fractals, doesn’t it?):

“Humans can recognize thousands of categories. Given the limited size of the human brain, it seems unreasonable to expect that every category is represented in a distinct brain area,” says first author Alex Huth, a graduate student working in Dr. Jack Gallant’s laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley.

Here is a video of the author that explains his work:

More

Read the Paper

Timur Kuran, "The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East"

Princeton University Press
2010

In the year 1000, the economy of the Middle East was at least as advanced as that of Europe. But by 1800, the region had fallen dramatically behind--in living standards, technology, and economic institutions. In short, the Middle East had failed to modernize economically as the West surged ahead. What caused this long divergence? And why does the Middle East remain drastically underdeveloped compared to the West? In The Long Divergence, one of the world's leading experts on Islamic economic institutions and the economy of the Middle East provides a new answer to these long-debated questions.

Timur Kuran argues that what slowed the economic development of the Middle East was not colonialism or geography, still less Muslim attitudes or some incompatibility between Islam and capitalism. Rather, starting around the tenth century, Islamic legal institutions, which had benefitted the Middle Eastern economy in the early centuries of Islam, began to act as a drag on development by slowing or blocking the emergence of central features of modern economic life--including private capital accumulation, corporations, large-scale production, and impersonal exchange. By the nineteenth century, modern economic institutions began to be transplanted to the Middle East, but its economy has not caught up. And there is no quick fix today. Low trust, rampant corruption, and weak civil societies--all characteristic of the region's economies today and all legacies of its economic history--will take generations to overcome.

The Long Divergence opens up a frank and honest debate on a crucial issue that even some of the most ardent secularists in the Muslim world have hesitated to discuss.

Timur Kuran is professor of economics and political science and the Gorter Family Professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University. He is the author of Islam and Mammon: The Economic Predicaments of Islamism (Princeton).

More

Yannis M. Ioannides, "From Neighborhoods to Nations: The Economics of Social Interactions"

Princeton University Press
Press Release
December 2012

Just as we learn from, influence, and are influenced by others, our social interactions drive economic growth in cities, regions, and nations--determining where households live, how children learn, and what cities and firms produce. From Neighborhoods to Nations synthesizes the recent economics of social interactions for anyone seeking to understand the contributions of this important area. Integrating theory and empirics, Yannis Ioannides explores theoretical and empirical tools that economists use to investigate social interactions, and he shows how a familiarity with these tools is essential for interpreting findings. The book makes work in the economics of social interactions accessible to other social scientists, including sociologists, political scientists, and urban planning and policy researchers.

Focusing on individual and household location decisions in the presence of interactions, Ioannides shows how research on cities and neighborhoods can explain communities' composition and spatial form, as well as changes in productivity, industrial specialization, urban expansion, and national growth. The author examines how researchers address the challenge of separating personal, social, and cultural forces from economic ones. Ioannides provides a toolkit for the next generation of inquiry, and he argues that quantifying the impact of social interactions in specific contexts is essential for grasping their scope and use in informing policy.

Revealing how empirical work on social interactions enriches our understanding of cities as engines of innovation and economic growth, From Neighborhoods to Nations carries ramifications throughout the social sciences and beyond.

Yannis M. Ioannides is the Max and Herta Neubauer Professor of Economics at Tufts University.

More

Income and Democracy: Lipset's Law Revisited

by Anke Hoeffler, Robert H. Bates and Ghada Fayad

International Monetary Fund
Working Paper No. 12/295
December 17, 2012

We revisit Lipset‘s law, which posits a positive and significant relationship between income and democracy. Using dynamic and heterogeneous panel data estimation techniques, we find a significant and negative relationship between income and democracy: higher/lower incomes per capita hinder/trigger democratization. Decomposing overall income per capita into its resource and non-resource components, we find that the coefficient on the latter is positive and significant while that on the former is significant but negative, indicating that the role of resource income is central to the result.

Read the Paper

Albert O. Hirschman (1915–2012)

Princeton University
Institute for Advanced Study
December 12, 2012

Renowned social scientist Albert O. Hirschman, whose highly influential work in economics and politics in developing countries has had a profound impact on economic thought and practice in the United States and beyond, died at the age of 97 on December 10 at Greenwood House in Ewing Township, N.J. Hirschman was Professor Emeritus in the School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study, where he had served on the Faculty since 1974.

“Albert Hirschman developed innovative methods for promoting economic and social growth through his study of the intellectual underpinnings of economic policies and political democracy,” said Robbert Dijkgraaf, Director and Leon Levy Professor at the Institute. “An impassioned observer who sought to understand the world as well as change it, Albert will be sorely missed by the Institute community and by the international community at large where his voice has influenced and guided advancement for more than half a century.”

Over the course of his long and extraordinarily productive career, Hirschman earned a reputation for progressive, lucid and brilliantly argued contributions to economics, the history of ideas and the social sciences. He explored a vast range of topics, inspired by the complexity of human behavior and social reality rather than by traditional economic models. He applied a subtle and iconoclastic perspective to reappraising conventional wisdom, resulting in original work that was a constant stimulus to critical thought in the social sciences. In a 1993 interview with Carmine Donzelli, Hirschman noted, “The idea of trespassing is basic to my thinking. Attempts to confine me to a specific area make me unhappy. When it seems that an idea can be verified in another field, then I am happy to venture in this direction. I believe this is a simple and useful way of discovering ‘related’ topics.”

More

Commerce Claus: The behavioral economics of Christmas

by George Loewenstein and Cass R. Sunstein

New Republic
December 20, 2012

Some economists dislike Christmas. They allege that it “destroys value,” which is, in Econoland, the first and only sin. The economist Joel Waldfogel, author of Scroogenomics, goes so far as to contend that the winter holiday season is “an orgy of value destruction.”

Waldfogel’s main concern is that the value of gifts to their recipients is typically far lower than the money that was spent on them. He found that of the $65 billion spent on winter holiday gifts in 2009, about 20 percent was wasted, in the sense that the gifts were worth that much less to the recipient than they cost. And indeed, it is an inescapable fact of life that people who receive holiday gifts often don’t much like what they get. If you’ve ever been presented with a sweater that you would never wear in public or electronic equipment whose purpose escapes you, you will understand what Waldfogel is talking about.

In hard economic times, when both the government and ordinary people are trying desperately to save money, this is a sobering analysis. We don’t propose that Congress should try to solve the debt crisis by requiring people to give holiday season money to the Treasury Department rather than spending it on presents. But mis-giving does no good for anyone, and we have a few ideas about how to make it through the season a bit more easily.

More

Saving Economics from the Economists

by Ronald Coase

Harvard Business Review
December 2012

Economics as currently presented in textbooks and taught in the classroom does not have much to do with business management, and still less with entrepreneurship. The degree to which economics is isolated from the ordinary business of life is extraordinary and unfortunate.

That was not the case in the past. When modern economics was born, Adam Smith envisioned it as a study of the “nature and causes of the wealth of nations.” His seminal work, The Wealth of Nations, was widely read by businessmen, even though Smith disparaged them quite bluntly for their greed, shortsightedness, and other defects. The book also stirred up and guided debates among politicians on trade and other economic policies. The academic community in those days was small, and economists had to appeal to a broad audience. Even at the turn of the 20th century, Alfred Marshall managed to keep economics as “both a study of wealth and a branch of the study of man.” Economics remained relevant to industrialists.

In the 20th century, economics consolidated as a profession; economists could afford to write exclusively for one another. At the same time, the field experienced a paradigm shift, gradually identifying itself as a theoretical approach of economization and giving up the real-world economy as its subject matter. Today, production is marginalized in economics, and the paradigmatic question is a rather static one of resource allocation. The tools used by economists to analyze business firms are too abstract and speculative to offer any guidance to entrepreneurs and managers in their constant struggle to bring novel products to consumers at low cost.

This separation of economics from the working economy has severely damaged both the business community and the academic discipline. Since economics offers little in the way of practical insight, managers and entrepreneurs depend on their own business acumen, personal judgment, and rules of thumb in making decisions. In times of crisis, when business leaders lose their self-confidence, they often look to political power to fill the void. Government is increasingly seen as the ultimate solution to tough economic problems, from innovation to employment.

More

See also

Urging Economists to Step Away From the Blackboard

by Brendan Greeley

Bloomberg
November 29, 2012

Ronald Coase published his career-making paper, The Nature of the Firm, 75 years ago. He won the Nobel prize for economics in 1991. In a lecture in 2002, he argued that physics has moved beyond the assumptions of Isaac Newton, and biology beyond Darwin. (Not that he knew them.) But economics, he said, had failed to advance past the efficient-market assumptions of Adam Smith. This year Coase, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago Law School, is attempting to start a new academic journal ambitiously titled Man and the Economy. The premise: Economics is broken. Coase’s journal is still just a plan, but his frustration with orthodox economics has energized his followers.

The financial crisis forced economists to confront the limitations of their profession. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted as much when he told Congress in October 2008 that markets might not regulate themselves after all. Coase says the problem runs deeper: Economists study abstractions and numbers, instead of firms and people. He doesn’t believe this can be fixed by tweaking models. An entire generation of economists must be encouraged to think differently.

The idea for the journal stems from his collaboration with Ning Wang, an assistant professor at the School of Politics and Global Studies at Arizona State University who grew up in a rice- and fish-farming village in the Hubei province of China. Coase, 101, began working with Wang in the 1990s at the University of Chicago. Neither has a degree in economics; the two understood each other. “We’re not constrained by a mainstream, orthodox view,” says Wang. “A lot of people would see this as a weakness.” Coase declined to be interviewed.

When Coase and Wang hosted a conference on China in 2008, they noticed that many Chinese academics had never talked to either policymakers or entrepreneurs from their own country. They had learned only what Coase calls “blackboard economics,” sets of theories and mathematical relationships between bits of data. “I came from China,” says Wang. “We have a lot of nationals come here; they’re taught game theory and econometrics. Then they’re going home … without a basic understanding of how the real world functions.”

In an essay published on Nov. 20 in Harvard Business Review, Coase argues that in the early 20th century, economists began to focus on relationships among statistical measures, rather than problems that firms have with production or people have with decisions. Economists began writing for each other, instead of for other disciplines or for the business community. “It is suicidal for the field to slide into a hard science of choice,” Coase writes in HBR, “ignoring the influences of society, history, culture, and politics on the working of the economy.” (By “choice,” he means ever more complex versions of price and demand curves.) Most economists, he argues, work with measures like gross domestic product and the unemployment rate that are too removed from how businesses actually work.

More

See also

Are wealth and prosperity synonymous?

by James Melik

BBC News
November 23, 2012

What is it besides the money in people's pockets that makes a society prosperous?

Many people argue there are ingredients other than hard cash to consider - such as personal freedom and good governance.

The International Energy Agency recently predicted the US could become self-sufficient in energy within a couple of decades - a move that should make any nation more prosperous.

Will Hutton, who chairs the economic research think tank Big Innovation Centre, and is principal of Hertford College in Oxford, says: "A secure energy supply will lead to lower energy prices, which could lead to a more vigorous US manufacturing sector."

It might make the US more prosperous financially, but will it feel safer and more at peace with itself?

Not necessarily so, thinks Jeff Gedmin at London-based think tank the Legatum Institute, which says its aim is to advance ideas and policies in support of free and prosperous societies around the world.

"I don't think there is any kind of mechanical relationship between material wealth and the well-being of citizens," he says.

"Every year we publish the Prosperity Index, and we find this year, for the first time, the US drops out of the top 10."

"When you look at access to education, access to health care, or access to opportunity, there are problems," he says. "The feeling Americans have is that hard work, as it once was, does not get them ahead any more in the same way."

More

Read more on the Prosperity Index

The lottery of life: Where to be born in 2013

Economist
November 21, 2012

Warren Buffett, probably the world’s most successful investor, has said that anything good that happened to him could be traced back to the fact that he was born in the right country, the United States, at the right time (1930). A quarter of a century ago, when The World in 1988 light-heartedly ranked 50 countries according to where would be the best place to be born in 1988, America indeed came top. But which country will be the best for a baby born in 2013?

To answer this, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a sister company of The Economist, has this time turned deadly serious. It earnestly attempts to measure which country will provide the best opportunities for a healthy, safe and prosperous life in the years ahead.

Its quality-of-life index links the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys—how happy people say they are—to objective determinants of the quality of life across countries. Being rich helps more than anything else, but it is not all that counts; things like crime, trust in public institutions and the health of family life matter too. In all, the index takes 11 statistically significant indicators into account. They are a mixed bunch: some are fixed factors, such as geography; others change only very slowly over time (demography, many social and cultural characteristics); and some factors depend on policies and the state of the world economy.

A forward-looking element comes into play, too. Although many of the drivers of the quality of life are slow-changing, for this ranking some variables, such as income per head, need to be forecast. We use the EIU’s economic forecasts to 2030, which is roughly when children born in 2013 will reach adulthood.

More

Misery Leads to Myopia on Money

by Daniel Akst

Wall Street Journal
November 16, 2012

If you’re organizing the funeral of a recently deceased loved one, beware. Sadness makes people more short-sighted when it comes to money, a new paper reports.

In experiments, researchers first primed participants by showing short films known to instill either sadness, disgust or neutral feelings. Then participants were offered choices between immediate sums of money or larger sums they would receive months later.

Faced with such choices—a staple in social science experiments—people typically discount future rewards heavily. But results in this case show that sad people discounted the future much more than people feeling neutral or disgusted. In one experiment, neutral-feeling people required $56 to forgo $85 three months later, but sad people required only $37.

More

Read the Paper

Women eager to negotiate salaries, when given the opportunity

by William Harms

UChicagoNews
November 15, 2012

Although some scholars have suggested that the income gap between men and women is due to women’s reluctance to negotiate salaries, a new study at the University of Chicago shows that given an invitation, women are just as willing as men to negotiate for more pay.

Men, however, are more likely than women to ask for more money when there is no explicit statement in a job description that wages are negotiable, the study showed.

“We find that simple manipulations of the contract environment can significantly shift the gender composition of the applicant pool,” said UChicago economist John List, the Homer J. Livingston Professor in Economics.

List was a co-author of a paper based on a study of people responding to job advertisements in which salaries were advertised either as negotiable or fixed. Women were three times more likely to apply for jobs with negotiable salaries and to pursue negotiations once they applied, the study found.

Among those responding to an explicit salary offer, 8 percent of women and 11 percent of men initiated salary negotiations. When the salary was described as negotiable, 24 percent of women and 22 percent of men pursued salary discussions.

“By merely adding the information that the wage is ‘negotiable,’ we successfully reduced the gender gap in applications by approximately 45 percent,” said List.

More

Read the Paper

For Investors, Costly Academic Studies

by Daniel Akst

Wall Street Journal
November 7, 2012

A wide variety of investment strategies are described in the finance literature, but they do have something in common: after the professors write about them, returns are diminished.

That’s the finding of a couple of finance professors who looked at 82 market anomalies exploited by investors and then described in academic papers. In a working paper, the authors estimate that “the average anomaly’s post-publication return decays by about 35%.”

Mostly this seems to be the result of investors learning about the strategy from the academic papers and trading on it, thereby diminishing the precious anomaly in just the way markets are supposed to work. The effect is most pronounced, the professors write, “in large market capitalization stocks, high dollar volume stocks, low idiosyncratic risk stocks, and stocks that pay dividends.”

Link

Read the Paper

The Intelligence Boom

James R. Flynn

by Bryan Caplan

Wall Street Journal
October 9, 2012

James R. Flynn, one of the most influential figures in modern psychology, isn't a psychologist. He is a trained political philosopher. He broke into psychology in his 50s by painstakingly documenting the now-famous "Flynn effect"—the strong tendency of nations' average measured intelligence ("IQ") to rise over time. "Are We Getting Smarter?" interweaves the author's expertise in psychology, political philosophy and sociology to shed light on a loosely related set of questions about human intelligence. At times the book feels like a collection of essays, but it forms one continuous argument.

When most people hear about the Flynn effect, they conclude that we really are getting smarter. Mr. Flynn is more cautious. He opens the book by reviewing his previous work on intelligence tests. IQs have risen, but we're definitely not smarter across the board. We're better with puzzles and similarities but not better at arithmetic. Vocabulary and general information have risen for adults but barely budged for children.

If you still want to say that people are "smarter" than they used be, Mr. Flynn doesn't object, but, he writes, "it would probably be better to say that we are more modern." Modern humans, he explains, see the world through what Flynn calls "scientific spectacles." We are comfortable with abstract classification, logic, and hypotheticals—including, Mr. Flynn suspects, moral hypotheticals. He amusingly recounts youthful arguments with his racist father: "[W]hen he endorsed discrimination, we [Mr. Flynn and his brother] would say, 'But what if your skin turned black?' As a man born in 1885, and firmly grounded in the concrete, he would reply, 'That is the dumbest thing you have ever said—whom do you know whose skin ever turned black?'"

Mr. Flynn then moves on to a grab-bag of IQ-related topics. Are less-developed countries experiencing a Flynn effect? Usually. IQ is rising very rapidly in Kenya and fairly rapidly in Saudi Arabia, but slowly in Sudan and Brazil. What does the Flynn effect imply for the death penalty? Courts call the execution of the mentally retarded "cruel and unusual," but how should we measure retardation? Mr. Flynn argues that a killer considered competent by the standards of 1960 could easily be categorized as mentally retarded by the standards of today.

More

Researcher Questions Whether Women More Risk-Averse Than Men

by Susanna Kim

ABC News
September 30, 2012

While previous academic research has shown women to be less willing to engage in risk than men in situations like gambling, a new economics paper released this week finds men can be just as risk-averse, if not more.

Julie Nelson, chairwoman of the economics department at University of Massachusetts-Boston, wrote “Are Women Really More Risk-Averse Than Men?” as a working paper this week.

Julie A. Nelson

“The paper finds a lot of the economics and finance research in behavioral differences between men and women is vastly exaggerated,” Nelson said.

Nelson and a research assistant reviewed more than 24 published articles about the subject, many of which studied men and women’s gambling habits and often concluded that women were less willing to gamble.

“My paper goes over the literature and says ‘not so fast,’” she said.

Nelson often found small differences in the averages of the two genders that measured how willing they were to take risks.

“Academic articles hide that there is a lot of overlap between men and women,” Nelson said.

More

Read the Paper

Thinking Fast Can Mean Doing Good

by Daniel Akst

Wall Street Journal
September 25, 2012

Is it better to act intuitively or after lots of consideration? The question has had a lot of attention in recent years.

Books like Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink remind us of how effectively we can perceive and decide in an instant. But Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow focuses on the pitfalls of our intuitive system as well as its strengths.

Perhaps the real challenge is figuring out when to use which; Freud suggested that we deliberate by all means over small matters (spread collar or button down? Fish or chicken?) but that on really big decisions, like whom to marry, it was best to go with your gut.

Now comes a study based on a series of Harvard experiments, showing that people are more likely to act for the collective good—and less likely to pursue self-interest—when they act intuitively.

More

Read the Paper

            

Paying attention to inattention

by Olivier Coibion and Yuriy Gorodnichenko

Vox
August 24, 2012

Economics and economists have taken a beating in the last few years. One practice on the receiving end of much criticism has been the use of models that assume rational expectations when individuals are well informed. This column proposes some tests of these assumptions and argues that 'imperfect information' models may succeed where others have failed.

It should be clear that among the causes of the recent financial crisis was an unjustified faith in rational expectations ...

Paul Volcker, 27 October 2011

Macroeconomics has taken a public flogging since the onset of the financial crisis, both from those outside the profession (such as the Oscar-winning documentary Inside Job) as well as from some insiders (such as Krugman’s Dark Age of Macroeconomics). One prevalent criticism is the assumption of full-information rational expectations (FIRE) under which economic agents know the structure and parameters of the economic model, observe all shocks and variables in real time, and form identical expectations. And while the FIRE assumption is indeed common in macroeconomic models, macroeconomists have long been exploring departures from full information. Lucas (1972) and Kydland and Prescott (1982) are early examples of models in which agents face imperfect information, and both Tom Sargent and Chris Sims – the two most recent Nobel recipients in economics – have done groundbreaking work along these lines.

Attention to models of inattention has been particularly high over the last decade since the pioneering work of Mankiw and Reis (2002), Sims (2003) and Woodford (2001). Each propose models that embed face information rigidities – frictions which lead rational agents to have only imperfect information about economic conditions – thereby departing from the full-information component of FIRE. The recent survey of this literature by Mankiw and Reis (2011) documents that models of imperfect information can address a number of puzzles in macroeconomics, international economics and finance.

At the same time, empirical evidence on the nature of the expectations formation process has been limited. While there is a long literature testing the FIRE assumption, it has proven difficult to quantify the economic significance (for example, does a departure make a difference for the macroeconomy?) and to interpret the nature of the rejections (for example, is it irrationality or imperfect information?). In recent work (Coibion and Gorodnichenko 2011, 2012), we propose and apply new empirical tests – derived directly from theoretical models of imperfect information – that shed new light on the expectations formation process of economic agents by addressing both limitations of traditional tests.

More

Income Inequality Enrages Monkey

Dr. Frans B. M. de Waal

by Brian Fung

Atlantic
August 21, 2012

Many humans have highly developed senses of fairness and morality. Some monkeys may not be far behind. Watch as one gets cucumbers and the other gets delicious, delicious grapes.

Recent research shows that although economic gains make us happier over the short term, money still can't buy happiness in the long run. What may be more important is how deep your neighbor's pockets are: Income inequality tends to make us more unhappy and less trustful, and in the short term can lead to explosions of anger and resentment.

Many humans have highly developed senses of fairness and morality, and it seems monkeys aren't far behind. Alex Tabarrok highlights research by Emory University psychologist Dr. Frans B.M. de Waal, who studied how monkeys and other mammals share many of our social mores. The reaction to unequal pay is (ahem) priceless.

More

Red States, Blue States, Gray Matter

by Tom Jacobs

Pacific Standard
August 10, 2012

Ever wonder why your stance on such hot-button issues as immigration or gay marriage feels so self-evident, while someone else finds the opposite opinion so obviously correct? There are various reasons for this, but researchers have just documented a startlingly basic one:

Your brain is different from his brain.

A research team led by Gary Lewis, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of California, Santa Barbara’s Sage Center for the Study of the Mind, has found structural differences between the brains of individuals who have different moral values.

We’re not just talking about differences in the way the brains function. Rather, they have documented significant variations in the actual volume of gray matter. That’s a big deal, and it “suggests a biological basis for moral sentiment,” Lewis and his colleagues write in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

“This does not explain political attitudes, but it improves our explanation of political attitudes,” said New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who developed the framework of moral attitudes used by Lewis and his team, but did not participate in the study. “Slight differences in brain structure and function make people more prone to develop one ideology or another.

“Having these pictures will make it easier for people to believe that, when we look at questions like taxes or gay marriage or work-to-welfare rules, we’re not perceiving the same reality.”

More

Read the Paper

See also

Images of specific regions of the brain show differences between people with different moral values, especially on issues related to purity (center right), and in-group loyalty (lower right). (Courtesy Gary Lewis)

Why the Dismal Science Deserves Federal Funding

by Gary S. Becker and James J. Heckman

Wall Street Journal
August 10, 2012

The federal deficit has ballooned in recent years, and even larger deficits are coming due to the expected growth of entitlement spending. There is little disagreement among members of both political parties that federal spending should be reduced. In such an environment it is crucial that the right criteria guide the cuts that will be made. Across-the-board cuts are not a thoughtful way to make choices.

The guiding principle is basic and obvious: We should cut federal government activities that can be performed at least as well by the private sector, and maintain, or even increase, productive federal activities that the private sector alone cannot handle effectively. There is legitimate disagreement about which activities belong in which category, but the great majority of economists have long agreed that the federal government should have an important role in the sponsorship of basic research. For-profit companies have weak incentives to invest in basic research partly because the results are not patentable, and partly because the culture of basic researchers, and the journals they publish in, makes the results of basic research available to all.

For these reasons the U.S. government has long played a leading role in supporting research in physics, chemistry, biology and medicine, and to a smaller extent in economics and other social sciences. It has also played a leading role in creating objective databases on which to make wise policy. This research and data have paid great dividends in helping to provide a better understanding of DNA, genetics and the human genome, and many other phenomena crucial to the modern world.

Indeed, the remarkable growth in life expectancy in the developed world in the past 60 years has been the result of the combined efforts of federally supported basic researchers at universities and elsewhere, and applied researchers in for-profit drug and biotech companies, and nonprofit institutes.

More