Post

It is sad that Scott Atlas doesn’t understand basic economics. Paul Samuelson wrote about public goods—why NIH has been such a stunning success—more than 75 yrs ago. Also, to see why Atlas urges ending US success, just look at who elevates him: pro-privatization billionaires. 1/

It’s ironic that Atlas begins by quoting Milton Friedman when the whole article fails to grapple with the market failures created by fundamental research—which is both a Samuelson public good and an information good (eg Arrow). papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

The reason the US has such a powerful science and innovation ecosystem is simple: decades of public investment (via largely independent agencies, including NIH and NSF). Basic science builds future cures over a timeline too long for the private sector. /3 www.infotimes.us/basic-scienc...

There is no way for the private sector to replace public investment in science. youtu.be/A47gXLNc7vQ?...

Sorry I meant to make this the first image

Now, why is Atlas writing this? I’m not saying he doesn’t believe it, he probably does. I’m just saying he wouldn’t have his recent career if he didn’t say things that benefit rightwing billionaires. Hoover, AIER, Trump 1 …

now he’s writing an anti-society pro-privatization article in the conservative Bezos Post. This book describes how far-right billionaires have pushed to harm democracy using “stealth politics” - lifting up junk ideas via thinktanks and rightwing media. press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/bo...

As we celebrate America’s 250th birthday, we can do better: we can support the public interest, freedom-including good health, equality for everyone, curbing the tyranny created by billionaires, and a free and fair marketplace of ideas. The opposite of what this is.

Don’t read the Bezos Post (except for pieces by the few great reporters that remain from the past). In DC, @51st.news is much better local news. For national politics check out indep outlets like TPM, @newrepublic.com , @washingtonmonthly.bsky.social

Last, abolishing the NIH and NSF would in fact create “a funding vacuum”. I hesitate to even engage with this utterly naive view of economics and science, but I’ll note CZI and HHMI’s dramatic course changes, Bell Labs support by govt contracts, and the much smaller Wellcome/CZI/HHMI budgets.