Letters to the Editor
-
Prizes are actually a pretty good idea
Not that I'm very fond of Newt, but the whole "prize" incentive structure is actually a good way of promoting environmental research (and research of any kind, really.)
Our current system generally sponsors research through the use of subsidies, which pretty much amounts to corporate welfare. Research subsidies are handed out whether or not any results are achieved, and distributed by politicians who need to bring home the bacon for their constituents and campaign contributors to remain politically viable. Thus, getting research money is as much a function of a given (usually corporate) researcher's connections in DC as it is a product of the research's actual merit.
Taking most of the money we currently spend on research subsidies and switching to a "prize" incentive structure would reward merit, not political lobbying. Promising research would be pitched to private venture capital or evaluated within the appropriate departments of organizations, with the lucrative prize being a substantial potential return on the investment.
Currently, DC sets the research goals (which it should do) and also picks and chooses the fortunate few that are funded to achieve those research goals (which it shouldn't do, and is an invitation to graft and pork). With a prize incentive structure, DC still sets the research goals, but the market picks and chooses who gets the seed money to work towards those goals. The market is pretty good at selecting for merit, even if it's terrible at achieving any goals other than making more money. Prizes are a form of indirect regulation in that they force the market, simply by virtue of its rapacious greed, to pursue a socially desirable goal.
On the other hand, Newt's tax credits idea is simply stupid. Corporations already have enough ways to evade taxes, we don't need to give them another.