57 Nobel Laureates to Congress: Just Get the Cash


Earlier this month, 57 Nobel Laureates signed a “Dear Members of Congress” letter urging Congress not to cut federal spending for scientific research. The letter was not accompanied by a translation understandable to nonscientific laymen, which prompted FEE president Lawrence Reed to provide this translation, free of charge:


April 9, 2013

Dear Members of Congress:

We’re smart enough to make a compass—the kind you take on hikes in the woods—but we lack an even more important kind of compass: a moral one. So we decided to write you a letter asking that you cough up some cash. We don’t care how or where you get it.

We thought about using our scissors to cut letters out of the newspaper and paste them on this sheet of paper so you wouldn’t know who sent this. But we’re rather proud and even sanctimonious about our plans. These days, it’s high fashion to stake a claim on other people’s hard-earned money instead of earning or attracting it voluntarily. Besides, getting it from you is a lot quicker even if your bureaucracy rakes off a big bundle of it to administer the distribution. We learned this as students at the government universities most of us attended, where the faculty work for the government and want the government to get bigger.

We think what we do is so important that we demand that you cut other people’s pay or mortgage their children’s futures before you reduce our claim on the federal treasury. After all, how could anybody’s personal desires or ambitions be more vital or future-focused than ours? We have university degrees.

Please don’t reject this demand because you’re already so deep in deficits and debt that there’s no way Americans can pay the bill without crushing them with taxes or ruining their currency. We’re oblivious to that. Remember, we’re Nobel Laureates, just like President Obama. It’s simply not possible for you to spend too much on what we think is important.

Some skeptics say that if our particular cause is really so worthwhile, private individuals, businesses, or charitable foundations would support it. But the problem is, as Dan Aykroyd pointed out in the first Ghostbusters movie, the private sector expects results. We’d rather get the cash from you because we know you don’t ask for such silly things.

The sequester is so draconian that the federal government will still spend more this year than it spent last year, so what’s the problem? We could have asked you to prioritize or maybe eliminate subsidies for green energy flops and aid to Somalia, then use the savings to preserve our funding. But that would just complicate matters and as Nobel laureates, we prefer simple solutions.

So please, just get the cash.

Respectfully (except if you’re talking other people’s money),

57 Smart People out of a Population of 315 Million
comments powered by Disqus


* indicates required
Sign me up for...


September 2014

For centuries, hierarchical models dominated human organizations. Kings, warlords, and emperors could rally groups--but also oppress them. Non-hierarchical forms of organization, though, are increasingly defining our lives. It's no secret how this shift has benefited out social lives, including dating, and it's becoming more commonplace even in the corporate world. But it has also now come even to organizations bent on domination rather than human flourishing, as the Islamic State shows. If even destructive groups rely on this form of entrepreneurial organization, then hierarchy's time could truly be coming to an end.
Download Free PDF