현직의사다. 지금 방역정책은 폭력이다. 뎀바바존경해요 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11394164705 호흡기의 구조는 상부기도와 하부기도로 나뉜다. 이번에 우세종이 된 오미크론은 폐에 병변을 남기지 않는다. 즉 상부기도에 국한된 바이러스다. 의사들은 상부기도에 걸리는 감염증을 이렇게 부른다. 감기. Common cold. 오미크론은 감기다. 감기중에서도 독감이라고 부를 수 있다. 2주후가 고비라거나 앞으로 더한 변이가 나올수 있다라거나. 이런 말들은 다 거짓말이다. 변이가 되면 될 수록 바이러스의 독성은 감소한다. 괜히 선진국들이 마스크를 벗고 방역을 해제할 준비를 하는 것이 아니다. 지금 장사도 못하게 하고 밥도 못먹게 하고 모이지도 못하게 하는 이런 제재들은 모두 방역을 핑계로 한 폭력이다. 여러분들이 이런 사실을 알기를 바란다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 수십년간 국민들이 가스라이팅 당해왔던 것 제갈윤대중 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11394147261 "비인기종목 설움" 비인기 종목 설움이 어디있어 개시발롬들아. 나라에서 돈주고 밥주고 재워주고 거기에 올림픽 나간다고 하면 항공기 티켓 숙소 뭐 다해주는데 평창올림픽 스켈레톤 금메달 따게하려고 윤성빈한테 몇십억 투자 할 때 은메달 딴 사람은 그 나라 대학원생이 자비로 그냥 온거였음. 하루종일 나랏돈으로 공짜로 밥도먹고 월급 타고 다른 거 신경안쓰고 그 운동만 해서 취미로 그냥 놀러온 다른 나라 사람들이랑 투닥 거리는게 자랑이고 국위선양이냐? 그리고 뭔 비인기종목 설움이야 다른 유럽이나 선진국 사람들은 자기가 신나서 자비내고 올림픽 출전하는데 요약 : 세금빨아먹으면서 다른거 신경 안쓰고 운동만 존나하는 김치 체육인들 해외 취미유저한테 처발림. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 설레발만치지말자/ 일베 댓글 < 짱개들이 메달을 강탈하는게 개꿀인 이유> 1. 문재인 뽑은 빨갱이 개돼지들 열받아서 발광하는거보면 속이 뻥 뚫려서 개꿀. 2. 전 세계 각 나라에 짱개가 얼마나 더러운 종자들인지 자기들 스스로 자진해서 셀프 홍보하고있어서 개꿀. 3. 모든 국민이 중국에 대해 혐오하고있는 상황에서 친중 정책을 하고있는 이재명이 당선되면 좌빨 선관위가 부정선거한게 명백히 드러난 상황이라서 개꿀. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 뉴데일리 [단독] 이재명 '2700억 사업권' 준 소씨 일가… 세금 67억 외에, 市 변상금 26억도 떼먹었다 소모 씨 일가, 성남 '시유지 변상금' 26억 떼먹고도 성호시장 사업권 따내 성남시, 소씨 일가 변상금 안 내고 버티자… 2009년 징수 포기하고 결손 처리 성남시의회 회의록엔 시의원 "사기당한 거죠?" 묻자… 성남시 회계과장 "네" 소씨 일가, 과거 67억 세금도 체납… 이재명, 국세청 '허가 취소' 요구도 묵살 정치 2021-11-04 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 매일신문 문재인 정부, 5년 간 '금융 낙하산' 인사 63명 국민의힘 강민국 의원 금융 공공기관 자료 분석…예보 16명, 캠코·신보·산은 각 9명 등 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 캐나다 혁명군이 캐나다 정부 해체 및 미연방 가입 요구ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 꺄팡고양이 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11394093631 트뤼도가 망친 병신 캐나다는 해체하고 영연방 탈퇴와 동시에 개인의 자유를 존중해주는 미연방 가입 주장ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 그와중에 트럼프가 미국-캐나다 연방 통합 대통령 되어야 한다는 주장도 같이 나옴 조또 아니면서 자존심 오지는 캐나다인들 사이에서 병신같은 조국 캐나다 그냥 해체하고 미국에 연방가입하자는 말까지 나오기 시작한거 보니까 신기하네 그만큼 트뤼도 총리를 혐오하는 여론이 반영된거 같음 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 근로소득세도 관세도 변칙 증세…'세정 횡포' 지나치다 [사설] 한경 2022.02.07 근로소득세 과세표준 체계는 1996년 이후 12년 만인 2008년 조정된 이후 다시 14년째 큰 틀에서 변화가 없다. 과표 1200만원 이하 6%, 4600만원 이하 15%, 8800만원 이하 24%의 세율이 적용된다. 2012년 이후 1억5000만원이 넘는 고소득층에 대해 몇 차례에 걸쳐 고율과세 구간이 추가됐지만, 저소득층·중산층이 대부분 포함되는 8800만원 이하 과표구간은 그대로다. 이렇게 장기간 과표가 고정돼 있으면 소득 증가에 비해 소득세 증가분이 훨씬 커지는 ‘냉혹한 누진세 효과’가 발생한다. 물가 상승을 감안한 실질임금이 제자리이거나 줄더라도, 명목소득 증가에 따라 더 높은 세율 구간에 편입돼 세금을 더 내야 하기 때문이다 교묘한 ‘약탈’ 구조가 형성되는 것이다. 실제로 300인 이상 사업장 근로자를 보면 2008~2020년 급여(세전)가 연평균 2.8% 증가한 데 비해 근소세(기본 인적공제만 전제)는 연평균 6.4% 늘었다. 근소세 증가율이 임금 상승률보다 두 배 이상 높다. 이 기간 중 물가가 단순 연평균 2.2% 올랐음을 감안하면 과세당국이 얼마나 혹독하게 소득세를 거둬들였는지 여실히 드러난다. 이런 폐해를 바로잡기 위해 국회입법조사처가 미국 영국 캐나다 프랑스 이탈리아 등처럼 과표에 물가 상승률을 연동시킬 것을 제안했지만, 기획재정부는 들은 척도 안 한다. 말로는 공정과세를 외치지만, ‘변칙 증세’의 단맛에 빠져 있는 탓이다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 이재명 도지사 3년… 업무추진비 8억 초과, 과일가게 한 곳에서만 7000만원 썼다 2018년 254만원→ 2019년 964만원→ 2020년 1376만원→ 2021년엔 4115만원을 한 가게에서 써 농산물도매시장에서도 2020년 825만원, 2021년 1668만원… '추석·설날 시즌' 업무추진비 경기도청 총무과 도지사 업무추진비도 7590만원… 도지사 이재명 업무추진비만 8억원 넘어 뉴데일리 ---->이재명의 행태를 보면 한국 사회는 이미 오래 전부터, 조선 시대로 역행한 것으로 보인다. 지방 수령이 토호가 되어 주민을 약탈하고 자기 마음대로 전횡을 일삼았지만, 시스템으로도 이를 저지하지 못했다. 민주제 사회 시스템 자체가 잘못되었고, 관료와 정치꾼들은 부패할대로 부패했다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 586주사파꼰대들이 2030세대 착취하는 방법 밝혀져 길가는사람 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11394134591 -586좌빨 꼰대들은 대학에서 데모만 하고 공부를 안했으니 능력은 없는데 권력욕심은 많아서, 갖은 감언이설로 국민 선동해야 권력잡을 수 있고 대통령 단임이니 이 기회에 한탕해야 노후를 즐길 수 있어. -방법은 우선 유착기업에게 특혜준다고 해서 뇌물받은 후, 정부규제를 피할 수 있게 해주고 특정주주에게 환매특혜 등을 맘대로 설정할 수 있는 사모펀드를 만들어, 이 기업주식을 사서 상장특혜든 정부사업취득이든 정부보조금 지급등을 권력과 혈세를 이용해 주가 올린 후 개미투자자들에게 비싸게 처분하고 한몫 챙기는거야. -이 정부 집권중 마음대로 쓴 천조원이 넘는 국책사업 자금들 (K방역, 일자리, 여성, 저출산,태양광, 바이오,보조금…)이 이런식으로 결국 이스타항공,지오영,신라젠,암호화폐거래소 등의 기업을 거쳐 라임, 옵티모스 등의 사모펀드로 돈이 흘러가게 하고 거기서 번 돈으로 강남아파트, 상가건물 마구 사들이며 떼돈을 번 거지. 이 모든 것을 위해 검찰 금융특수부도 폐지하고 대통령 친인척 감시 비서관은 아직까지 임명하지 않았지. 아니면 이재명처럼 권력이용해 부동산개발이익 빼내어 먹는 거지. -부정한 방법으로 돈벌었으니 정권바뀌면 다치지 않기 위해 검찰 무력화하고 경찰 정치화하고 공수처 세워 방패막이 만들어. 그리고 국회, 법원, 헌법재판소, 선관위, 시민단체들에 꼬붕 심어서 이중삼중으로 퇴임후를 대비하지. 좌빨들끼리 지 자식들 좋은 자리로 끌어주고 추천해줘서 자식들도 혜택누리게 하고 민주화유공자녀우대법도 만들어 자손대대로 혈세를 빨게 법을 만들어 놔. -하지만 겉으로는 적폐청산, K방역선전, 남북정상회담, 반일선동 등으로 국민들 관심을 다른 곳으로 돌리고 선거때면 혈세를 선심쓰듯이 국민에게 풀어 이기면 돼. -국민여러분, 이 정부가 그렇게 많은 혈세를 여러분들에게서 걷어갔는데도, 4년이 지난 지금 여러분들은 파산,실직,부도,코로나 등으로 더 힘든 이유는 이 자들이 중간에서 여러분이 낸 혈세를 가로챘기 때문입니다. 더구나 국방붕괴, 외교왕따, 사회분열, 환경오염, 건강 실업보험 파탄도 모자라 중국 시진핑에게 나라까지 팔아넘기기 위해 전국 각처의 군부대 근처에 중국문화단지 세워서 전쟁시 우리 군인들 뒤에 치게 만들고, 우리 먹거리 기술도 다 갖다바치고 있습니다. -이제는 한국전쟁때 수십만 우리 여인들 유린한 중공군들을 위해 혈세로 추모시설까지 건립하자고 난리이고 시진핑 일대일로 연결돕기 위해 북한에 우리 혈세 수십조원으로 고속철도 항만 등을 대신 깔아주게 하는 법도 은밀히 통과시켰습니다. 이 모든 부정부패는 문재인의 권력에 의존하고 있으므로 결국 문재인이 여러분 돈을 훔치고 여러분 노후를 망가뜨린 겁니다. -그런데도 문재인은 올해에도 지 연봉은 올리고 퇴임하면 매달 수천만원 연금을 혈세로 받고 땅값오른 양산 호화주택에서 노후를 즐기며 여러분들을 비웃고 있을겁니다. -대선에서 여당이 이기면 앞으로 5년간 문재인은 매달 수천만원 연금 챙기며 수많은 가족비리도 덮어 감빵아닌 호화양산주택에서 여생을 잘 보낼테고 이재명은 더 큰 비리로 서민들을 수탈할테니 반드시 막아야 합니다. 누가 되었던 반드시 야당이 이겨야 이미 청와대,행정부,국회,법원,검찰,경찰,공수처,군,지방정부,헌법재판소,선관위,각종 공기업과 관변단체 등을 수만명의 친중 친북 좌빨간첩들이 모두 장악한 좌빨세력에 최소한의 견제장치를 마련해 민주주의를 지킬 수 있습니다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [박통팔이 강용석 등 탄핵 역적 윤석렬의 충견들] 가장 잔인한 좌파 사냥개 역적 윤석렬 - 좌익보다 더 폐악한 우익 개돼지들 -펌- <좌익보다 더 폐악한 우익 개돼지들> 저는 대한민국이 좌익들 때문에 망할 거라고 생각했었고, 좌익에 맹목적인 개돼지들이 많다고 주장했으며, 좌파를 좀비라며 비아냥거리던 것이 사실입니다. 그러나 이제는 맘이 좀 바뀌었습니다. 대한민국의 망함은 사회주의 좌파 때문이 아니라, 좌파에 맞서는 진정한 보수 우파가 없기 때문이라는 것을 깨달았습니다. 그 완결판이 윤무당을 지지하는 보수 우파 개돼지들을 보고는 더욱더 확실해졌구요. 반문만 한다고 보수 우파입니까? 보수 우파의 가치는 법치 수호에 있습니다. 법치가 무너져도 사회주의 정책만 반대하면 보수 우파라고 착각하는 등신들과, 보수 우파의 가치를 이용하여 자신들의 밥그릇과 탐욕을 채우려는 우파팔이 위장 보수 유튜버들과 SNS 오피니언들, 식자 먹물충들, 기득권 사탄파 세력들, 아스팔트 변태파(변절한 태극기) 때문에 대한민국이 더욱 빨리 망해가고 있다는 것을 깨달았습니다. 지금 많은 구독자수를 확보하고 있는 소위 보수 우파 유튜버들이 윤무당의 립서비스 멘트 몇 마디에 열광하며 줄을 서는 것을 보니... 참 억장이 무너지는 것을 넘어서 이제는 피폐해지는 참담한 심정을 가눌 길이 없습니다. 성골 보수우파들의 몸서리치는 침묵. 위장 보수 우파들의 기회주의적 영욕추구에 나라가 무너지고 있습니다 윤무당은 보수 우파의 현존하는 정신적 지주인 박근혜대통령을 조작 수사와 누명을 덮어 씌워 지금 4년 9개월간 감방에 가둔 장본인입니다. 또한, 문형표 전 보건복지부 장관에게 위증교사를 하는 등, 보수 우파 정부의 공무원과 인사들 200여 명을 직권남용, 강압수사로 감옥으로 보내고 이재수 기무사 사령관 같은 수 많은 수사대상자를 자살시킨 장본인이구요. 대한항공 조회장이 별세하는데 일조를 다하고, 삼성 이재용부회장,등 수많은 세계적 일류 기업들의 최고경영자를 감옥으로 보내는 좌익 골수의 가장 잔인한 사냥개가 법치 수호를 운운하면서 국민들을 또 들먹이고 있는데... 여기에 환호하는 소위 보수 우파 등신들이 하는 말이 거럼 윤무당 이외에 다른 대안이 있냐고 묻습니다. 저는 윤무당이 대권을 도전하든, 정치를 하든, 그것은 지맘 입니다. 말릴 맘 전혀 없습니다. 그런데, 대권 후보로 나오려면 더불당 후보로 나오는 것이 딱입니다. 나라를 이렇게 아작낸 골수 좌익의 사냥개가 대중, 놈현 정신을 깊히 새기며, 5.18 정신을 국가 헌법에 넣고, 문재인 정권에게 정치보복을 없을 것이라고 스스로 충성 맹세를 다짐했는데, 어떻게 야당 보수의 후보로 나올 수 있는지.... 정말 개돼지들은 보수 우파에 더욱 많다는 것을 확인하고는 보수에 환멸을 느끼고 있습니다. 문재앙의 대선공약인 '보스를 불태워 없애겠다.' 라는 '차도살인'이 윤무당에 의해 완성되지 않으려면, 보수 변태파(변절한 태극기) 부터 척결하여야만 합니다. ➕권기형님의 펌 글입니다 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 혁신과 국가 국가가 과학을 지원하거나 또는 과학의 진흥을 계획해야 할까? 러시아가 스프트닉호를 쏘아 올린지 2년 후인 1959년에 쓴 이 글에서 로스바드는 사회적으로 유용한 과학적 혁신은 시장 경제 내에서 일하는 독립적인 과학자들에게서 나온다고 주장했다. 그와 반대로 국가는 과학을 왜곡하고 중요한 혁신을 만들어내지 못한다고 말한다. Innovation and the State Murray N. Rothbard [Should the state back science or even plan its progress? In this excerpt from a longer and previously unpublished study written in 1959—two years after Russia's launch of Sputnik and two years before the first manned space flight—Murray Rothbard (1926–95) argues that socially beneficial scientific innovation comes from independent thinkers working within the market economy, while the state distorts science and produces no really important innovations. This paper is not only remarkable for its theoretical rigor but also for its enduring quality: it was written at a time when the idea of state planning for science was at its height. See the full text here.] Charges abound that scientific research, left to the mercies of the free market, would be insufficient for modern technological needs. The general principles of government policy in this field we have already set forth: (a) leaving the general allocation of resources purely to the free market—the profit and loss incentive and test of the free market being the only efficient way of allocating a country's resources in the way best calculated to satisfy consumer demand. This principle applies fully as well to scientific research as to any other sphere; and (b) for the military needs of research, acting only as a consumer rather than as a producer using funds to pay for private scientific contractors. In actual practice, the Federal government is already doing a great deal (although, as we shall see below, it can do much more) in this direction, by channeling most of its military research funds into private contractors, whom the military sees to be more efficient than government operation.1 Let us first turn to the problem of general research, however. Is it really true that such research will be deficient on the free market? We have, first, been hearing a great deal of how much resources the Soviet Union has been putting into scientific research, and how we must redouble our efforts in order to catch up. But the National Science Foundation has estimated that the Soviet Union has been putting a little over 1% of its national product into research and development. The Steelman Report of 1947 called for the United States to place 1% of its national product into research and development, in the years ahead. Yet, we now have 2% of our product going into "R and D," and out national income is far, far higher than that of the Soviets.2 In 1953–54, private sources contributed $2.6 billion to R and D; this contrast to a total of $530 million of private funds in 1941. In fact, with the exception of pure, or basic, research (which we will study further below) the National Science Foundation's study conceded the sufficiency of private scientific research in American industry. The flourishing of private research in our modern age had been eloquently hailed by General David Sarnoff, board chairman of RCA: Today, science and industry are linked by arteries of progress and their lifeblood is technical research…. The patter of our industrial progress … lies in a partnership between those who create good things and those who produce and distribute and service them. It lies in teamwork between research and industry.3 We have seen that government subsidization or operation of (non-military) research would distort the efficient allocation of resources of the free market economy. It would do more; as Sarnoff pointed out, government aid would inevitably mean "increased government control of the daily lives of all the people." Secondly, government control would tragically bureaucratize science and cripple that spirit of free inquiry on which all scientific advance must rest: "government control of research would destroy the very qualities that enable researchers to make such an important contribution to society. For government control means that rigid lines would be set for research; and these lines may not meet changing requirements. Certainly industry is best qualified to define its own research needs. And the partnership between research and industry loses its meaning when government can dictate the subject and objective of research in any competitive system of private enterprise.4 The myth has arisen that government research is made necessary by our technological age, because only planned, directed, large-scale "team" research can produce important inventions or develop them properly. The day of the individual or small-scale inventor is supposedly over and done with. And the strong inference is that government, as potentially the "largest-scale" operator, must play a leading role in even non-military scientific research. This common myth has been completely exploded by the researches of John Jewkes, David Sawers, and Richard Stillerman in their highly important recent work.5 6 Taking sixty-one of the most important inventions of the twentieth century (excluding atomic energy, which we will discuss below), Jewkes et. al. found that more than half of these were the work of individual inventors—with the individuals working at their own directions, and with very limited resources. In this category they place such inventions as: air-conditioning, automatic transmission, bakelite, the ball-point pen, catalytic cracking of petroleum, cellophane, the cotton picker, the cyclotron, gas refrigeration, the electron microscope, the gyro-compass, the helicopter, insulin, the jet engine, kodachrome, magnetic recording, penicillin, the Polaroid camera, radio, the safety razor, titanium, and the zipper. The jet engine was invented and carried through its early development, practically simultaneously, by Britons and Germans who were individual inventors, either completely unconnected with the aircraft industry or not specialists in engines. The gyrocompass was invented by a young German art historian. The bulk of the basic inventions for radio came from individual inventors unconnected with communications firms, some of whom created new small firms of their own to exploit the invention. The cyclotron was invented and partly developed by a university scientist, using simple equipment in the early stages. Penicillin was invented and partly developed in a university laboratory, and insulin was invented by a general practitioner who used a university laboratory. "Government control of science, government planning of science, is bound to result in the politicization of science, the substitute of political goals and political criteria for scientific ones." Of the inventions studied that were achieved in industrial research laboratories, some arose in small firms, others were more or less accidental by-products of other work rather than preplanned and predirected. Terylene, the synthetic fibre, was discovered by a small research group in a firm not directly interested in fibre production. The process of continuous hot strip rolling of steel sheets was thought up by an individual inventor and then perfected in a small steel company. The LP record was invented by an engineer working on it as an individual sideline, and then was developed by another corporation. In other cases, inventions in the research laboratories of large companies were made by small research teams, often centered around one outstanding man. Such was the case with Nylon, at the DuPont laboratories.7 The twentieth century has produced some great independent inventors, creators of many important new devices. One of them, the Englishman S.G. Brown (components for telegraphy, telephony, radio, and gyro-compass) declared: "if there were any control over me or my work every idea would stop." Brown never accepted financial aid for experimental work, or for producing a new device. How would such a man fare under the control of a government-directed research team, or one that was government-controlled? P.T. Farnsworth, great television pioneer, has always preferred to do his research on a small scale and with simple equipment. F.W. Lanchester, great British inventor in aerodynamics and engineering once wrote: "the salient feature of my career … (is that) … my work has been almost wholly individual. My scientific and technical work has been almost wholly individual. My scientific and technical work has never been backed by funds from external sources to any material extent." Lee de Forest, eminent inventor of the radio vacuum tube, always found it difficult to work under any conditions short of complete autonomy. Sir Frank Whittle invented the jet engine with very slim resources. C.F. Kettering often positively preferred simple equipment. And R.M. Lodge recently warned: The trend towards more and more complex apparatus should be carefully watched and controlled; otherwise the scientists themselves gradually become specialist machine-minders, and there is a tendency, for example, for analytical problem to be passed from the microanalytical laboratory to the intra-red laboratory and from there to the mass spectrographic laboratory, whereas all the time all that was needed was a microphone and a keen observer.8 The worthy individual inventor is far from helpless in the modern world. He may, in a free enterprise system, become a free-lance consultant to industry, may work on inventions on outside grants, may sell his ideas to corporations, may form or be backed by a research association (both profit and non-profit), or may obtain aid from special private organizations that invest risk capital in small speculative inventions (e.g. the American Research and Development Corporations). One very important reason for the success of the independent inventor, and his preservation from the dominance of large-scale government-controlled projects, stems from the very nature of invention: "The essential feature of innovation is that the path to it is not known beforehand. The less, therefore, an inventor is pre-committed in his speculation by training or tradition, the better the chance of his escaping from the grooves of accepted thought.9There are many recorded instances of the inventor winning out despite the scoffing of the recognized experts in the field, perhaps even emboldened because he didn't know enough to be discouraged. One authority maintains that Farnsworth benefited from his lack of contact with the outside scientific world. Once, a professor gave him four good reasons why his idea—later successful—could not possibility work. Before the discovery of the transistor, many scientists claimed that nothing more could be learned in that field. Eminent mathematicians once claimed to prove logically that short-wave radio was impossible. Government-controlled research would undoubtedly rely on existing authorities, and thus would snuff out the searchings of the truly original minds. Many of the great inventors of recent times could not have gotten a research job in the field for lack of expertise: the inventors of Kodachrome were musicians; Eastman, the great inventor in photography, was a bookkeeper at the time; the inventor of the ball-point pen was an artist and journalists; the automatic dialing system was invented by an undertaker; a veterinarian invented the pneumatic tire. Furthermore, there are many inventors who are part-time, or one-shot, inventors, who are clearly more useful on their own than as part of a research team. As the eminent British zoologist John Baker points out, the life of an independent researcher involves the willingness to bear great risks: "The life is too strenuous for most people, and the timid scientist hankers after the safety of directed team-work routine. The genuine research worker is [an] altogether different kind of person."10 Darwin once wrote: "I am like a gambler and love a wild experiment." The importance of self-directed work to great scientists is stressed by the Nobel prize-winning chemical discoverer of vitamins, Szent-Gyorgyi, who wrote: "The real scientist … is ready to bear privation … rather than let anyone dictate to him which direction his work must take."11 Not only inventors, but many types of scientists benefit from the work of independent researchers in their fields. Einstein said that: "I am a horse for single harness, not cut out for team-work," and suggested that refugee scientists take jobs as lighthouse-keepers, so that they could enjoy needed isolation. The fundamental discoveries in valence theory, cytogenetics, embryology, and many other fields of twentieth-century biology, were made by individual scientists.12 Scientific discoveries, furthermore, cannot be planned in advance. They grow out of apparently unrelated efforts of previous scientists, often in diverse fields. The radium and X-ray treatments for cancer owe most, not to planned research, on cancer cures, but to the discoverers of radium and X-rays, who were working for quite different goals. Baker shows that the discovery of a treatment for cancer of the prostate emerged out of centuries of unrelated research on: the prostate, phosphatase, and on hormones, none of which was aimed toward a cancer cure.13 Apart from individual scientists and inventors, there is also great need for the existence of small research laboratories in small firms as well as in large ones. There is inevitably a clash between practical administrators of research and the scientists themselves, and the evils of bureaucratic administration and crippling of scientific endeavor will be infinitely greater if science is under the control or direction of the Ultimate Bureaucracy of government.14 O.E. Buckley, when President of the Bell Telephone Laboratories, stated: "one sure way to defeat the scientific spirit is to attempt to direct enquiry from above. All successful industrial research directors know this and have learnt by experience that one thing a director of research must never do is to direct research." Similar views have been expressed by C.E.K Mees, of Eastman Kodak, and Sir Alexander Fleming, discoverer of penicillin, who said: "certain industrial places … put up a certain amount of money for research and hire a team. They often direct them on the particular problems they are going to work out. This is a very good way of employing a certain number of people, paying salaries, and not getting very much in return."15 Jewkes and his colleagues, describing the best ways of crippling a research organization, might have had a typical government operation or control in mind: The chances of success are further reduced where the research group is organized in hierarchical fashion, with ideas and instructions flowing downwards and not upwards … where the direction to research is … closely defined … where men are asked to report at regular intervals … where achievements are constantly being recorded and assessed; where spurious cooperation is enforced by time-wasting committees and paper work.16 In gauging the effectiveness of large vs. small-scale research, we should remember that whether or not a firm engages in research at all (apart from government contract) depends on the type of industry it is in. The great bulk of manufacturing firms, for example, do not engage in research and development at all. The one-tenth that do, are mostly in technologically advanced and advancing industries, where expanding scientific knowledge is needed, and where many scientists must be hired anyway for test and control work. On the other hand, industries that rely more on empirical rather than scientific knowledge do less research. Some large-scale industries, like chemicals, do a great deal of research; while others, such as iron and steel, do much less. Some small-scale industries do little research, while others, like scientific instrument firms, do a relatively great amount. And while the bulk of industrial research is done by the very large firms, we have seen the vital role of the independent inventor (and later we shall see further the crucial role of the university laboratory in basic research). Furthermore, it has been found that in those firms that do conduct research, the number of research workers per 100 employees is higher for the small, and lowest for the large firms.16 It should be noted that few of the Nobel Prize winners since 1900 came from the large industrial research laboratories. Furthermore, many of the current research labs of the big corporations originated as small firms, which were later bought by the big corporation. This happened with General Motors, and with General Electric. The large corporations also make a great deal of use of outside consultants and independent research organizations (both profit and non-profit making). This certainly must confound the partisan of organized, large-scale government-controlled and directed research: for if organized, large-scale research is invariably more efficient, why do these big corporations bother with small outside firms? Here are some of the reasons given by the big firms themselves: They may be short of trained people. Or they may be confronted with a task of a non-continuing nature which they prefer to have out to others … or they may be confronted with a type of technical problem new to them which they feel they cannot handle at all. Or, having been continually defeated by some technical problem, they may hand out the task to others who will come to it with fresh minds and no preconceptions.18 Resistance of an organization to new ideas has occurred significantly even in efficient, alert corporations—how much more would it occur in government, where there is neither the incentive nor the possibility of a profit-and-loss check on its efficiency! Thus: the telephone, cable, and electric manufacturing companies were originally apathetic about the possibilities of wireless telegraphy; RCA resisted Armstrong's FM ideas; the Edison Company, at the turn of the century, scoffed at the idea of a gas motor for transportation, insisting on the future of the electric motor for that purpose; the established aircraft-engine firms scoffed at the jet engine and at the retractable under-carriage; the British and American chemical firms were highly critical of penicillin, and almost refused to take part in its development; The Marconi Company expressed no interest in television when it was brought to their attention in 1925; the manufacturers of navigational equipment took no part in the invention of the gyro-compass. When the Ford Motor Company sought to introduce automation in their factories, they turned to the small specialized firms in the machine-tool industry, "The small uninhibited firms with no preconceived notions." And even Henry Ford resisted the thermostat, or hydraulic brakes. Furthermore, in many of our biggest industries, the critical innovations of the twentieth century have come from outside the big firms. Of the three big inventions in the aluminum industry up to 1937, two came from men outside the industry—despite the fact that ALCOA had an aluminum monopoly during those years. The two significant new ideas in steel-making in this century cam from a newcomer and from one of the smaller steel firms (continuous hot strip rolling), and the other from an individual German inventor (continuous casting). The large-scale, progressive automotive industry has benefited a great deal from outside ideas—including automatic transmissions and power steering, and small firms and accessory manufacturers have contributed new systems of suspension. In the progressive, large-scale petroleum industry, which devotes heavy expenditures to research, many leading ideas have come from small firms or outside individuals including catalytic cracking: "Looking back dispassionately we find that (the major oil companies) mainly took up and developed ideas, which were brought to them by men who did not, in the first instance, belong to their own team."19 Another important point is that most industrial research laboratories, even in the large companies, are themselves small; more than one-half of the laboratories in the U.S. employ less than 15 scientists, and most of these are for routine or development work, rather than research. The average operating cost of a laboratory per research scientists is about $25,000—not a prohibitive sum for an average sized firm. Moreover, 49% of all firms holding patents, in 1953, had fewer than 5000 employees all told. Many laboratories, while remaining at the same size, have fluctuated greatly in their failure or success over time, depending on the qualities of their personnel and, above all, their leadership. The leading inventors in these laboratories themselves stress the virtues of small groups. Fermi has said: "Efficiency does not increase proportionately with numbers. A large group creates complicated administrative problems, and much effort is spent on organization." And, in a striking anticipation of Parkinson's Law of Bureaucracy, S.C. Harland wrote this about the large lab: You see crowds of people milling around with an air of fictitious activity, behind a façade of massive mediocrity. There is a kind of Malthusianism acting on research institutes. Just as a population will breed up to the available food supply, research institutes will enlarge themselves as long as the money holds out.20 We may proceed now from research proper to the field of development. It has been argued that, while small scale basic research may continue to be important, the cost of developing already-created inventions is growing ever-greater, and is therefore peculiarly susceptible of large-scale organized and directed effort. Most of the technological work in the industrial laboratories, indeed, is the actual development of new methods and products, while university and other educational laboratories have relatively concentrated on pure research. Development costs have grown more expensive especially in the chemical industries, where a new idea is taken and run through very large-scale empirical experimentation (e.g. the trial-and error searching for a better strain of penicillin among a large number of possible molds). Increased caution in developing products, greater testing for quality and safety, a heavy initial advertising campaign to introduce new products—all these factors have increased the costs of development in modern times (although, with technological advance cheapening everything else, we may expect it to lower costs of development as well). But a crucial point about development has been often overlooked: how many resources to put into development as against other things, how fast to develop at any given time, is a risky decision on the part of a firm. The decision depends upon the firm's estimates of future costs, sales, profits, etc. Government, crippling or eliminating the free market signals of prices and costs, would be lost without a guide to efficiency or allocation of resources. Further, the main reason deciding a firm to devote its resources in an attempt at speedy development is the spur of competition. And competition means the free, unhampered market. Even in the case of Nylon, the most cited example on behalf of large-scale monopoly research and development, DuPont had the competitive spur of knowing that German scientists were also working on similar synthetic fibres. Where the competitive spur is weak, or especially non-existent (as in government), development will be slowed down. Furthermore, the existence of many firms, many centers of development, make it far more likely that new ideas will obtain a hearing and a trial somewhere. General Electric, when dominant in lighting, was sluggish in developing fluorescent lighting, but once other firms entered the field, it sprang to life and regained a dominant position through its newfound efficiency. As Jewkes and his associates sum up: Against the claim that the prerogative in development should always rest with the biggest and the most securely established industrial organizations, may be set, therefore, the advantages of the attack from many angles. The tasks of development are themselves of such diversity and of so varying a scale that it may be a … dangerous oversimplification to suppose that they can always be best handled by any single type of institution.21 The best condition, they add, is a variety of firms, in size and in outlook—some bold and others cautious, some leading and others following. Even in the field of development proper, in fact, many important new products have come from small-sized firms, or even individuals. These include: air conditioning, automatic transmissions, bakelite, cellophane tape, magnetic recording, quick freezing, power steering, crease-resistant textiles, and ram-jet aircraft. Professor Baker has preferred another important refutation of the statist claim that governmental monopoly direction of research would eliminate "wasteful overlapping" of effort. Baker points to the enormous importance for scientists, in having two or more mutually independent scientists or laboratories confirming each other's conclusions. Only then can the world of science consider the experiment truly confirmed.22 Soviet Science "Planned" science sounds impressive; actually it means prohibited science, where no scientist can follow the leads of his own creative ideas. We have heard a great deal recently about the alleged glories of Soviet science, and about the necessity of the United States catching up with such wonders as sputniks. What is the real record of Soviet science? Professor Baker, analyzing this record, shows that, at the beginnings of the Soviet Union, the old pre-revolutionary scientists continued to do well, largely because science was not yet under government planning. That came with the Second Five-Year Plan, in 1932. The Plan set forth very broad subjects for investigation, but, by the nature of such a plan, many important areas were excluded from the required agenda. "Take almost any branch of non-revolutionary biological science in which outstanding discoveries were made in the outside world during the years of the plan, and you are likely to find that the whole subject was excluded from study."23 For example; the study of hormones, and genetics. The Lysenko controversy, the use of the State to eradicate the science of genetics in Soviet Russia, and the compulsory twisting of truth by the Soviet State to fit the ideological myths of its rulers, are well-known, but can hardly be overstressed. It is important to realize that it is not simply because the Soviet or Nazi leaders were particularly perverse men that they reached out to prevent or cripple science's drive for truth; but because such actions are inherent in the very nature of statism, and central planning. Power, and its promotion, advancement of the ideology of power, become the highest social goal, before which all truth, all integrity must give way. Government control of science, government planning of science, is bound to result in the politicization of science, the substitution of political goals and political criteria for scientific ones. Even pro-Soviet scientists have admitted that Soviet research is inferior to American, that basic, as contrasted to applied, research, is neglected; that there is too much red tape; that little fundamentally creative work has been done; and that science is unduly governed by political considerations—such as the political views of the scientist propounding any given theory. Scientists are shot for taking the view that happens to be in political disfavor. And, as Baker concludes: "If the selection of scientific personnel is left to the State, the wrong ones are likely to be given important posts, because those who are not themselves scientists will be let astray by … false claims and pretences … (and) scientists may exhibit a servile obedience to their political bosses."24 No wonder that in a list, drawn up by seven scientists, of the two dozen most important scientific discoveries made between World Wars I and II, not one came from the U.S.S.R. 1.In 1953–54, the Federal government spent $2.81 billion of its funds on scientific research and development; of this amount, only $970 million was spent on programs within the government itself (and most of this was development rather than research); the remainder was channeled into private hands to pay for privately-conducted research ($1.5 billion in industry, $280 million in colleges). 2.See Basic Research, A National Resource (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1957); and John Steelman, Science and Public Policy (Washington, D.C., 1947). 3.Brig. Gen. David Sarnoff, Research and Industry: Partners in Progress (Address, Nov. 14, 1951), pp. 6–7. 4.Sarnoff, op. cit., pp. 12 ff. 5.John Jewkes, David Sawers, and Richard Stillerman, The Sources of Invention (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1958). 6.Typical recent expressions of the myth may be found in John Kenneth Galbraith, American Capitalism; W. Rupert Maclaurin, "The Sequence from Invention to Innovation", Quarterly Journal of Economics, Feb. 1953; Waldemar B. Kaempffert, Invention and Society; A. Coblenz and H.L. Owens, Transistors: Theory and Application. 7.For other experts who believe that a highly important role still remains for the individual independent inventor, see Joseph Rossman, The Psychology of the Inventor; the late Charles F. Kettering, New York Times, March 12, 1950; W.J. Kroll (the inventor of ductile titanium), "How Commercial Titanium and Zirconium Were Born." Journal of the Franklin Institute, Sept. 1955; and H.S. Hatfield, The Inventor and His World. 8.R.M. Lodge, Economic Factors in Planning of Research, 1954. Quoted in Jewkes, et. al., p. 133. On other cases of great scientists preferring simple equipment, see: John Randal Baker, The Scientific Life, P. Freedman, The Principles of Scientific Research, J.B.S. Haldane, Science Advances. 9.Jewkes, et. al., p. 116. 10.John Randall Baker, Science and the Planned State (New York: Macmillan Co., 1945), p. 42. 11.A. Szent-Gyorgyi, "Science Needs Freedom." World Digest Vol. 55 (1943), p. 50. 12.See Baker, op. cit., pp. 49–52. Baker comments on the lack of originality of research teams, who tend to be better at following up the leads of others than at originating ideas themselves. 13."Our modern knowledge of how to control cancer of the prostate is due to the researches of these men—of Hunter, Gruber, Griffiths, Steinach, and Kun on the prostate; of Grosses, Rusler, Davis, Baaman, and Riedell on phosphatase; and of Kutcher and Wolbergs on phosphatase in the prostate. Not one of these men was studying cancer, yet without them, the discovery of the new treatment could not have been made . . . what central planner, interested in the cure of cancer, would have supported Griffiths in his studies on the seasonal cycle of the hedgehog, or Grosser and Husler in their biochemical work on the lining membrane of the intestine? How could anyone have connected phosphatase with cancer, when the existence of phosphatase was unknown? And while it was yet unknown, how could the man in charge of the cancer funds know to whom to give the money for research? No planner could make the right guesses." Baker, op.cit., pp. 59–60. 14.On the inevitable clash between research administrators and scientists, see: Jewkes, et. al., pp. 132 ff.; K. Ziegler, The Indivisibility of Research, 1955, S.C. Harland, "Recent Progress in the Breeding of Cotton for Quality." Journal of the Textile Institute (Great Britain), Feb. 1955; R.N. Anthony, Management Controls in Industrial Research Organization. 15.From L.J. Ludovivi, Fleming, Discoverer of Penicillin, cited in Jewkes, et.al. 16.a. b. Jewkes, et.al., pp. 141–42. 18.Jewkes, et. al., pp. 188–89. 19.P.H. Frankel, Essentials of Petroleum, 1946, p. 148. Quoted in Jewkes, et. al. 20.Harland, loc. cit. Also see Laura Fermi, Atoms in the Family, p. 185. Quoted in Jewkes, et. al., p. 162. 21.Jewkes, et. al., p. 222. 22.There is one occurrence . . . which helps the scientist form a valid judgment better than anything else. This is the . . . publication of the same result by two entirely independent workers. Central planners are inclined to consider that one of the two independent workers has been wasting his time. The actual research worker knows that this is not so. It is the very fact that the two workers are independent that inclines others to accept their findings. Scarcely a working scientist will deny that two independent papers containing the same result are very much more convincing than a single paper by two collaborators . . . (also) each paper has a different outlook, and the reading of the two papers is far more stimulating and suggestive." Baker, op. cit., p. 49. 23.Baker, op. cit., pp. 66ff. 24.Baker, op. cit., pp. 75–76. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------