Science and the Free Market
As part of a series of articles analysing the impact capitalism has upon science, Owain Gallbhreatnach turns to the recent controversy surrounding Alzheimer’s research to outline the need for a scientific system unbounded from the profit motive.
"Is science unscientific now?" seems a crazy question to ask, but the goal of this piece is to outline that very case, or at least to ask questions about how the material reality of science is manipulated by the forces of capital. This is a question that has become particularly relevant as of late, with recent exposés in Alzheimer’s research showing fundamental failings in the Medicial Research-Industrial complex.
Crises in capitalism
The nature of Crises being embedded in the capitalist system of production has been explained in many ways, but the most consistent criticisms come from Marxist thinkers. To quote Lenin from ‘The Three Sources of Marxism’:
“Capital, created by the labour of the worker, crushes the worker, ruining small proprietors and creating an army of unemployed. In industry, the victory of large-scale production is immediately apparent, but the same phenomenon is also to be observed in agriculture, where the superiority of large-scale capitalist agriculture is enhanced, the use of machinery increases and the peasant economy, trapped by money-capital, declines and falls into ruin under the burden of its backward technique. The decline of small-scale production assumes different forms in agriculture, but the decline itself is an indisputable fact.
By destroying small-scale production, capital leads to an increase in productivity of labour and to the creation of a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists. Production itself becomes more and more social—hundreds of thousands and millions of workers become bound together in a regular economic organism—but the product of this collective labour is appropriated by a handful of capitalists. Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after markets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of the population are intensified.”
The framing Lenin uses here is, in my opinion, quite useful in recognizing the same pattern in the scientific process, and I will clarify this in the next section, but for now it is a summary that will suffice to show capitalism in motion, where it starts and leads to. Regardless of the stage within it we find ourselves in, its motion and forces are undeniable.
To keep the article from becoming too long, and to allow a clean comparison, I will hone in on the idea of the rational investor (capitalist, to move to Marxist terminology). In one of Marx’s punchier quotes from the early parts of Capital, we read “while the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser.” As Marxists, we believe that under capitalism, the contradictions inherent in the system lead to events where the system collapses and needs the intervention of a government body to rearrange the agreements surrounding capital.
Crisis in science
Be it Archimedes in the bath, Newton under a tree or Einstein's pollen grains, events and observations have always been at the core of developing science and its theories. Without fundamental observations and repeated testing, even the most theoretical fields like string theory and statistical physics would have no grounding. We do not need to answer the chicken and egg question of observation and proposed theory leading to further developments down the line. No matter the degree to which previous explanations led to theories such as Evolution when it was proposed by Darwin, it is the theory emerging or being verified from a vast set of observations, experiments, results and successful predictions that have led to it being accepted.
Theories stem from repeated observation and testing, with the more something is observed and recorded, the more it becomes akin to established fact. Here emerges the origin of a crisis in science - theories and disciplines forming based on incorrect, faked or withheld information. The scientific process builds on all that came before it. On account of this, a problem being found far back in the chain can set research back considerably. As famously said by Isaac Newton, "if I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants".
There are multiple selfish reasons for a crisis to emerge. If a scientist wishes to claim all the credit for a work they may stifle the readership of publications of others. While we recognize science is a collaborative process by design, this does not make individual scientists immune from selfish motivations. Indeed, Newton himself wasted a vast amount of experts' time with his personal quest to be seen as the 'inventor' of calculus (it is of course the correct Marxist take that Leibniz is owed this honour). But under a utopian scientific system, all assumptions we rest further work on are to be tested repeatedly until proven beyond doubt. We would not see arguments between people trying to claim ideas and studies, as it would be more collaborative by design.
The influence of capitalism on science
We are used to the hypothetical rational investor being raised to explain the mechanics of markets under capitalism, so now I ask, who wins between the rational scientist and the rational investor? Will the schools of thought that emerge be the guiding figures in what research is carried out? Of course not. Often, as happy coincidence, there will be an agreement between the rational scientist and the rational investor, with both parties needing the other for their interests.
We must ask, does capitalism, which modern science must work within, affect science in any way, and if so, is it positive or negative for science itself and the rest of the world? The motive which now drives the research which can be done is profit projections, with the goal of delivering an end product which can be sold. By design, this means scientists are primed to frame a lot of their work within the nature of what can be delivered if they are granted future funding. The rational investor will not want to fund repeat experiments to verify results, so in order to chase profits/provide steady returns, we must assume it is rational for both the scientist wishing to continue work (which requires funding) and the investor seeking the best return on investment (lowest cost, highest return).
Under this model, we see a tendency towards trying to accelerate the process by which we can create a product, which does not necessarily find itself based on any true theory, but can give some result suited to profit. If I want to continue to work as a scientist and that work is decided by this process, I will not likely be guided by return to fundamentals as I am constantly seeking the next product, under the assumption previous research holds up enough.
I will accept some immediate criticisms of the argument I am outlining here, namely that there are scenarios in which products like well-established medicines and software have their fundamentals reassessed to sell an updated (reformulated) product, or hold onto patent rights as an example of capitalism furthering research on previous parts of the development of a theory/product. However, the easy point for me to raise here is that the underlying mechanism here is still that the majority of these products would be from the same process of selection which meant other possible avenues of thought/products were discounted on behalf of the projections of profit not being adequate for the investor. So the cycle does not fundamentally change because of the forces at play. A clean comparison is that Microsoft, Adobe and others do not invest in new products that fix the flaws of their original models, but continuously patch bulky products we have had for decades while charging subscription fees.
Does Lenin’s diagnosis, mentioned previously, of the crisis inherent within the capitalist system lead us nicely to analysing how it relates to the crises in science? I would say so. As previously noted in this magazine, Lenin uses agriculture as the chief vessel for analysis, particularly noting that while crises in agriculture exist without the capitalist system, the capitalist system causes them to emerge much more often and at have a much more extreme effect than it would otherwise.
If writing about science, then, Lenin would say:
“Capital, created by the labour of the worker, crushes the worker, ruining small proprietors and creating an army of unemployed. In industry, the victory of large-scale production is immediately apparent, but the same phenomenon is also to be observed in science, where the superiority of large-scale capitalist research is enhanced, the use of high tech laboratories increases and small-scale research, trapped by money-capital, declines and falls into ruin under the burden of its unprofitability. The decline of small-scale research assumes different forms in science, but the decline itself is an indisputable fact.
By destroying small-scale research, capital leads to an increase in productivity of labour and to the creation of a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists. Production itself becomes more and more social—hundreds of thousands and millions of workers become bound together in a regular economic organism—but the product of this collective labour is appropriated by a handful of capitalists. Anarchy of production, crises, the furious chase after markets and the insecurity of existence of the mass of the population are intensified.”
Only one word of the second paragraph is changed, and it doesn’t take much to relate it to the modern highest level of production and research - “Big Pharma”.
Case study - Alzheimer’s research
For many in the sphere of public health research, there was confusion and outrage recently that the dominant theory of the cause of Alzheimer's is potentially based on fraudulent foundations. A groundbreaking study from 2006 - which purported to show that one specific protein likely led to Alzheimer's developing - has been all but confirmed to include doctored imagery as an extensive investigation by Science Magazine has outlined. The opposition from scientists to the work isn't new, but has not been taken as important until an investigation was funded by those with a financial interest (people with a short position on the stock).
What has been overlooked in the initial shock for many of us is how billions would likely be continued to be pumped into this theory based on sketchy fundamentals, if it wasn't for competing private interests to the authors of the original paper.
Does this counter the proposal that capitalism has a negative effect on science, then? No - It confirms it! Capitalism led all important stages in the process to be underfunded and underresourced where it mattered. As asked previously, the answer is always the rational investor has more influence than the rational scientist. The pure motive of research pointed to problems in the chain of the theory of this specific protein years before billions were spent worldwide, based on the motive of a return on investment.
The question has been partly answered by the same industries, and is at the heart of the scandal. Good public funds are thrown after bad research in the current system where the labour of the scientists is largely owned (directly through employment or through grant schemes to college based researchers) by the capitalists. The capitalist will take as much state aid as they can to mitigate any potential risk, like they did with Covid grants. If the capitalist owns the lab and the labour power of those who can research, then they dictate the price of any potential advancement in a bidding process. We need to stop the sinking of public funds into research where the gains go to capitalist pockets and the losses are covered by taxes paid by the working class.
A shorthand has developed over time that companies have Research and Development arms as to the capitalist, there is no reason to discern between them. Under capitalism, the goal of all research is the same as the development of products - to give them a return on investment. We need to break the connection between research and profit, providing those who wish to continue their research with stable long-term employment in the area as opposed to employment dictated solely by what is profitable.