Money does not educate. This is the point of view held by Urs Paul Engeler, parliamentary correspondent of the weekly newspaper "Weltwoche", and one that he voiced not only in an article (1), but also at the second event in the series "Debating Science Culture" (2) entitled "Money and intellect; luxury or necessity?" Engeler’s statements resembled a two-handed dissection of the promotion of national education. The journalist claimed, for instance, that the greatest inventions had not come to pass because of public money. He gave no examples to illustrate this point. He only brought out these to "prove" to a former administrative apprentice, Marcel Ospel, that the value of a university education is overrated. Or that, despite the input from a host of well-trained geologists, the construction of Neat (a new tunnel under the Gotthard) has come to a standstill. Engeler does not simply doubt the benefit of public funding for research; he interprets Switzerland’s disappointing results in the Pisa study as an indication that money begets indolence.

Historically embedded

The journalist was just about alone in his interpretation of the matter. In his short address at the beginning of the event, Francis Waldvogel, President of the ETH-Board, went as far as back as Gaius Maecenas (from where the word for maecenas or patron) to find witnesses of the benefit of support for research. Waldvogel sees governmental support as a necessity, even though new ways of funding must be found. An interesting comment from the ETH-Board President was that today’s assessment of researchers was based too strongly on quantitive and not qualitative criteria. For the future, Waldvogel calls for new assessment parameters that also include ethical considerations. Because, he adds, not everything that can be investigated is worthy of investigation.

ETH President Olaf Kübler also took a trip back into history. The question of funding for research has existed ever since philosophers crawled out of their barrels. For the time being, Kübler considers the present paradigm of government support indubitable. As companies from the private sector have only short or middle term perspectives nowadays support for long-term research projects must come from the state. However, the ETH president sees an increase in tertiary education that will lead to greater competition. This is why the use of resources must become increasingly focused, in the course of which process criteria must be discussed on the assignment of resources.

ETH particle physicist, Felicitas Pauss, explained why the value of research cannot always be determined beforehand, using CERN as an example.

Part of "Debating Science Culture": exchanges over an aperitif. large

Even though this research institution was set up to investigate fundamental questions like the building blocks of material, it has generated a fair amount of "industrial return" over the years. Some of the technology developed from necessity at CERN has become important in treatments for cancer, amongst other things. With regard to public funding of research, Pauss points out that society is not interested only in the economic value, but rather shares in the fascination for fundamental questions that research addresses.

Trivial dispute

After the delivery of such divergent points of view it would appear an easy task for the moderator, Gerd Folkers, to set the discussion going again after the break. Yet appearances can be deceptive. To be sure some participants, among them a number a students, expressed interesting opinions but reciprocal, direct challenges were the exception. Nor did the statement from Andreas Hüsler, the students’ devil’s advocate for the event, provoke a direct response. Even Urs Paul Engeler seemed to lose the inclination to prosecute his point of view further or make his position more precise. His remark, that he had not invented the economisation of science, sounded surprisingly tame.

Undecided criteria

The failure of a real debate to materialise also had a positive side. Participants did not fall into a defensive modus, where nobody listens to what anybody else says. Most of the statements that were made show that public money for research is deemed necessary or at least desirable. Many who spoke mentioned the non-profitable benefits of science or questioned an attitude that sees rentability as the ultimate criteria for spending. However, there was no time for a specific debate on the choice of criteria to be used when it comes to the distribution of limited resources, despite the presence of decision-makers in the auditorium. Kübler’s statement that, in a society where a winner-takes-all attitude dictates the outcome of issues, a reduction of resources can have fatal consequences, certainly gave participants food for thought. At the moment, however, the president of ETH sees no alternative to government funding. Should such an alternative appear, he believes, it would quickly prevail.