When it comes to federal investment in research and development, failures like Solyndra are held up as evidence of wasteful government spending while success stories go largely unnoticed. But what kind of returns do we see on investments in scientific research by government? And should government funding emphasize basic or more practical, applied research? To answer those questions and more, I’m joined today by Benjamin F. Jones.

Ben is a professor of Entrepreneurship and Strategy at Northwestern University as well as the faculty director of the Kellogg Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative. This summer he authored “Science and Innovation: The Under-Fueled Engine of Prosperity.”

Subscribe to Political Economy with James Pethokoukis in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

There is 1 comment.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. HillaryObama Inactive

    Probably investing as little as possible in research..

    Pfizer using “Dry Lab” data

    Ventavia Research Group operated several of the trial sites …
    Brook Jackson, who worked for the company during this
    time, told the British Medical Journal that the trial was
    riddled with issues, including the falsification of data.

    So Pfizer needs 50 years 75 years of secrecy to protect
    their reputation.

    • #1