In his March 2021 report “The undermining of science is Trump’s legacy” (page 24), David Kramer conflates science itself with his personal preference for the government planning of scientific research. They are two different things.
Throughout the piece, Kramer smuggles in his own value judgments about what governments should do regarding science. For combating climate change, for example, he ranks the 2015 Paris Agreement highly. Another person with the same understanding of and appreciation for climate science might prefer, for whatever reason, that governments do the opposite of what Kramer wants. (Murray Rothbard’s essay “Law, property rights, and air pollution” provides insight into environmentalism without interventionism.1)
Similar implied value judgments hold for Kramer’s comments on federal budgets and workforce: It is not interfering with scientific research to cut federal funding. Tax-funded research funnels resources into what Kramer ostensibly deems important. But all goods are scarce, so what is the opportunity cost—that is, what scientific research is not performed in other areas? No one can say. Kramer is suggesting that governments should determine the amount and direction of societal spending on scientific research, and others may simply have different opinions.
Kramer’s report is not about undermining objective science itself. Rather, it is a description of the high subjective value he places on government-directed scientific research.
