Fermilab's New Commercial Research Center

PolygamousRanchKid writes "When completed in 2013, the new research center will wrap around the Collider Detector at Fermilab and provide a state-of-the-art facility for research, development and industrialization of particle accelerator technology. Whereas particle accelerators like Fermilab's now-defunct Tevatron were once the realm of the scientist doing basic research on the nature of the universe, accelerators now have a broader mandate for commercial applications, said Fermilab Director Pier Oddone. The goal for the facility is to develop relationships between scientists and private businesses to develop accelerator technology that can be used in medicine, industry and national security. Though most people think of accelerators on the scale of Fermilab's Tevatron or the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, more than 30,000 smaller particle accelerators exist around the world and can be used for applications other than basic science research. 'The innovation now implemented in many areas often came about as the by-product of our pushing the technological envelope of our own accelerators...needed for advancing particle physics,' said Oddone."

Cost-benefit, and for whom

[Empiric]

Though this seems like one of the more "worthy" recipients of the approach, this seems like another example of a "privatize profits, socialize costs" endeavor.

As the division between "public" and "private" gets increasingly hazy, shouldn't there be at least a nominal analysis of the overall economic results of this type of structure? We no longer have a common expectation that the results of public-funded science projects belong to the public, so given that "it will create (some) jobs" is something that can always be said, while discounting the jobs that could have been created by alternate use of the total capital involved--what metrics are there around what is a "good candidate" for such a public/private endeavor, other than opportunity-cost ignoring "feel good" numbers supporting arbitrary political favoritism?

This doesn't seem to even be a "Republican" versus "Democrat" issue anymore--we seem to be rushing full-speed ahead with overt corporatism, and I'm personally doubtful that this approach can be sustained with simple hand-waving as to the actual overall economic effects. If there are cases where these types of projects should be objected to, by what means could one object, given this justification "methodology" that seems not to face, nor even have the expectation of, any real critical analysis?

Re:Cost-benefit, and for whom

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

As a rough heuristic, any state wealth-redistribution program that doesn't have packs of lobbyists and AEI economists shrieking about socialism, communism, and class warfare is very likely converting your tax dollars into somebody's shareholder value more or less by design.

Wealth-redistribution plans that do have such a pack are somewhat less clear. They are less likely to be an overt screwjob; but their efficiency or efficacy may still be miserable.