
The Libertarian Futurism of Peter Thiel (2011) - romefort
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-taxes
======
et2o
It seems like Silicon Valley is full of people who love espousing their noble
ideas but got rich via (as Thiel admits) at best socially neutral things like
Facebook and Paypal.

As for the anti-aging research: Fund the NIH. Basic science like that needed
in aging research isn't going to come on a startup timescale. Thiel makes a
big deal about encouraging people to leave universities, but the smartest PhD
students are generally not the ones leaving academia.

~~~
dnautics
The nih's run of good Basic science is over and may never come back.
Government has this pesky thing called accountability that it needs to
satisfy. There is no way to hold a scientist accountable when the fruits of
'basic science' are not provable for decades or centuries. It's just too easy
for a snake oil salesman to extract funding from clueless program managers
(the smartest PhD students are not the ones becoming program managers).

As for smart PhDs leaving academia... They are. Getting a faculty position is
basically a crap shoot that requires politicking, landing a lucky project,
getting a high impact factor publication, or all three. The labor market was
so saturated by decades of encouraging more people to be PhDs (it kind of
became a dumping ground for students who didn't want to med school or look for
a job) that the distinction between a good scientist and a bad failed to be
the standard academic metrics. Good scientists who diligently pursued
difficult research were more likely than not rewarded with little because such
projects might not be doable in a five year PhD or a two year postdoc. The
other route out is fraud.

Edit: oh, I see, you're in the MSTP. Please consider Upton Sinclair's quote:
"it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends
on his not understanding it"

~~~
et2o
My main point was that product-driven start-ups are not going to be able to do
the basic science research needed to get revolutionary advances in things like
aging research. You're complaining about getting only 7 years of protected
research time with no real expectation of a viable product: How long will
these types of places have?

If you're going to call me out on my vested interested in NIH funding, I think
you should acknowledge you have a pretty similar (opposite) conflict of
interest :)

Certainly the NIH basic science funding situation right now is absolutely
dismal. However, it's ludicrous to suggest that the reason is because of some
lack of "accountability." It's also not exclusively "clueless program
managers" who are choosing how funds are disbursed: There are panels full of
(decidedly) non-clueless professors who do that.

The real reason is because there are more PhDs than there used to be, more
professors than there used to be, more people applying for grants than there
used to be, and NIH funding has become nominally stagnant (declining in real
dollars) after a period of massive expansion.

I'm not arguing that getting a faculty position is definitely something of a
crapshoot, especially if you aren't a dual-degree candidate and don't have a
clinical aspect to your work that you can fall back on.

~~~
dnautics
What's my conflict of interest? I'm not paid by my nonprofit, and it doesn't
do basic research.

I think you missed my point. If the smartest are leaving academia, then the
professors that are reviewing grants and papers ARE clueless. How did Arsenic
Life get through review with glowing reviewer comments? How is it that Reza
Ghadiri got $6M to pursue DNA nanopore research sequencing with zero previous
experience in the field? I could go on and on.

As for alternatives for basic science, the idea that science must be funded by
either the NIH or startups (or even industry writ large) is a false dichotomy:
consider Peter Mitchell.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_D._Mitchell)

It's also worth noting that one of the most major medical advances of the 20th
century, the eradication of polio, was done similarly without the NIH.

~~~
et2o
I know I probably invited inflammatory responses by suggesting that the best
PhD students are able to stay in academia, which I admit is an
overgeneralization.

From what I see (and this is getting more personal than I'd like to from a
response to my lighthearted comment) you left academia to work at a
pharmaceutical (non-profit) company you started. I may have gotten that wrong.
If so I apologize.

I do think it's a bit beside the point to be arguing about this instead of the
ideas, but so be it.

Peter Mitchell was exceptional, as was every other Nobel Prize Winner, the
vast majority (the rest?) who were academics. If you're arguing that moving to
a model where individual scientists soliciting charity for their research is
better, I would have to disagree. You think the general public is better able
to assess research value than the NIH?

~~~
dnautics
It is not just an overgeneralization, it is basically a dangerous defense of
the status quo, that doesn't match up with reality. The problem is largely
that science has become a kleptocratic system where there's even a term
'grantsmanship' that everyone knows involves a level of dishonesty and
overselling. If you'd like for your scientific leaders to be polluted, at a
fundamental level, with this toxic attitude, then perhaps you deserve the
scientific system we have now.

On a personal level, I find it to also be a very distressing appeal to
authority - "well these people are professors because clearly they deserve to
be"... I mean, I have worked under/with professors who definitely deserve it
(Ham Smith, Clyde Hutchison, Dan Gibson, Vanessa Hayes, Jeff Kelly, my boss at
the University of Maryland - who does incidentally now work for the NIH, but
is planning on quitting) but there is a very, very long list of professors who
do not... I'm not really going to name too many names for obvious reasons.

~~~
jcfrei
The fact that _[t]here is no way to hold a scientist accountable when the
fruits of 'basic science' are not provable for decades or centuries_ is an
inherent problem with science. I can't think of an alternative system which
would resolve this. If there was no uncertainty with regards to the profits
resulting from research, then it wouldn't be science anymore - it would simply
be consulting. And I honestly can't imagine how you can prevent _dishonesty
and overselling_ when laymen are involved in funding decisions through
donations.

Edit: I've just read the comment by eli_gottlieb further below and would argue
that's a far better improvement for science rather than abandoning the NIH.

~~~
dnautics
Exactly, you have hit on my point. You can't prevent dishonesty and
overselling period.

When a person gives out of their own pocket to an outlandish and unlikely
project, that is on them. When the government gives out to an outlandish and
unlikely project, the donors _had no choice_.

In that way, government is dangerous, and therefore must be held to a higher
standard of accountability. A charity or private nonprofit, if it screws up,
it will find itself in a more difficult position with regard to seeking
further resources for its work.

------
vegancap
Don't get me wrong, I really like Peter Thiel, but it's hard to consider him
'Libertarian', whilst selling advanced snooping software to the U.S.
government.

~~~
stillsut
Why? Libertarians think gov't is needed for certain institutions like an army,
or a justice system.

~~~
praxeologist
Logically consistent libertarianism requires anarchy. More here if you like to
know why:

[http://www.walterblock.com/wp-
content/uploads/publications/b...](http://www.walterblock.com/wp-
content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf)

~~~
baldfat
I get the funniest looks when someone says that they are a Libertarian. My
response is oh your an anarchist, but at what level? EDIT: The libertarian
looks at me funny.

Seriously, libertarians have no idea of the history of the political movement
they are involved in.

~~~
nsxwolf
Why are libertarians the only group held to a pure ideological standard? No
one blinks when they meet a conservative or liberal with a few positions that
go the other way.

For example, I frequently hear liberals say that if libertarianism were pushed
to its logical extreme, you'd end up with Somalia. For some reason, liberals
are insulated from the question on what happens when leftist ideology it
pushed to its extreme.

~~~
s73v3r
"Why are libertarians the only group held to a pure ideological standard?"

Because they keep espousing positions that have proven to be terrible ideas.
They forget about history, and why things like government regulations came
about.

~~~
dnautics
I'm not sure libertarians are not opposed to regulation, they just require
regulations to have a rational basis, and be restricted in scope. For example,
not allowing murder is certainly a regulation, and I'm pretty sure
libertarians generally are ok with that regulation.

Not all but some libertarians are arguably more familiar with history, because
they understand the degree to which regulation historically has been twisted
(generally: to screw over the poor), wheras their detractors have been sold
the line that exists to defend the status quo on any given regulation.

------
DickingAround
I have to say, the writing style of this article is an immense time-waster.
Even skimming it doesn't get to the point quickly because the history of Thiel
(large in size but mostly unimportant) is inter-mixed with the ideas he's
espousing (small in size but really the part we care about).

What ever happened to 'summary' then 'summary with more depth' then 'summary
with even more depth'?

~~~
dudurocha
This is not what The New Yorker tries to do. It's a different type of
journalism. It do not worry about the lenghs of its articles.

