There are some things that the “Free Market” simply will not do. One of those things is funding basic scientific research. Why? It simply isn’t likely to lead to anything profitable.

Corporations may (and I say may here) fund research into applied science if they see that the risk of doing so is small compared to the potential reward in terms of developing a product they can bring to the market and obtain substantial profits (think pharmaceutical companies who spent money of drugs to “cure” erectile dysfunction, for example).

Basic research, however, is rarely done by any corporation unless they can forego the expense, and for one simple reason: the managers of the firms in question must be able to justify that such investments will lead to a likelihood of profits, and one cannot know in advance if that will be the case with basic scientific research, much of which, while fascinating, may never lead to anything a company can use to make products that generate a large revenue stream.

However, basic, fundamental scientific research research, while “risky” from the standpoint of corporations and big business, may lead to discoveries that provide real benefits to not only our country, not only the human species, but the planet as a whole. A good example of such research is this recent announcement by scientists at the Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory, who have discovered a means to potentially lower the energy cost of converting carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas contributing to global warming and climate change) into other molecules, such carbon monoxide and a precursor for methanol, molecules which do have industrial applications.

New research by chemists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory and their collaborators offers clues that could help scientists design more effective catalysts for transforming carbon dioxide (CO2) to useful products. The study, published in Angewandte Chemie International Edition, reveals how a simple rearrangement of molecular attachments on an iridium hydride catalyst can greatly improve its ability to coax notoriously stable CO2 molecules to react.

The research, which combined laboratory experiments with theoretical analysis, shows that, in the dark, only one of the two molecular arrangements can effectively transform CO2 to formate (HCOO-), a precursor of methanol. In the presence of light, however, both species form a common intermediate that can transform CO2 to carbon monoxide (CO), a useful raw material for making fuels and industrial chemicals.

More importantly, this research may help with further discoveries into ways to lower CO2 emissions, or possibly remove CO2 from the atmosphere. In the words of one of the main researchers who produced this research (based on the theoretical work of Mehmed Zahid) Ertem):

“There is strong interest in finding ways to reuse CO2 to create a carbon-neutral society,” said Brookhaven chemist Etsuko Fujita, who led the experimental portion of this work.

Let me just say, that in light of the present situation in which we find ourselves, a world rapidly descending into climate chaos primarily due to global warming from greenhouse gas emissions, that is an understatement. Finding ways to convert harmful CO2 into other chemicals that do not share its propensity for causing the atmosphere to retain heat is critical, considering how much carbon dioxide we are emitting into the atmosphere each day. Obviously, it won’t be easy, as Dr. Fujita recognizes.

“Reactions to produce products such as methanol or hydrocarbons from CO2 would be very useful. But if you think about the energy input and output of these reactions, it’s really very difficult,” she said.

Finding more efficient catalysts is the key to lowering the energy required to jump-start these reactions. Because various researchers had suggested that the iridium hydride catalyst might be an improvement over other well-known catalysts for producing CO from CO2, Fujita’s group undertook this research to investigate its mechanism of action.

“If you understand how a catalyst works, you can often devise ways to modify its function to make it work even better,” said Zahid Ertem, whose theoretical analyses provided the framework for understanding the experimental results. […]

“In fact, no matter which isomer we started with, the theoretical calculations show that this species with the carbon positioned opposite the vacant hydride position forms as an intermediate, which then catalyzes the conversion of CO2 to CO,” Ertem said.

“Because that intermediate is so reactive,” Fujita added, “it is extremely hard to isolate experimentally-which is one reason the theoretical analysis was so important to this study. The theoretical analysis corroborated all the measurements we could make and predicted the existence of this one key intermediate,” she said.

The theoretical calculations also offered insight into why the positioning of the carbon atom is so essential to the reactivity of this species-and may suggest strategies for the rational design of more effective catalysts.

This work is important. Yet, can anyone imagine a large corporation investing the money into basic research that is necessary to discovering if we can limit CO2 emissions through the use of technologies employing such catalytic processes? For-profit corporations, by their very nature, are not designed to make such long term investments in research that may never pan out.

In our present, late stage form of “Disaster Capitalism”, corporations see no value in conducting such research. Their goals are all short term – raise the stock price, increase profits, increase executive compensation. Long term investments in scientific research by former corporate behemoths, such as AT&T’s investment in its Bell Labs division, conducted in the last century are no longer the model followed by our current “I must get mine before you can get yours” corporate culture.

Let me clear. The research described above is not a revolutionary breakthrough that will inevitably lead the way to a carbon neutral society. However, it may be a big step in the direction of one. It points the way to further research that may find further reductions in the energy cost required to convert CO2 into other, less environmentally damaging compounds. The only actors who can fund such research and absorb the risk are national governments.

Unfortunately, we have a large number of extremist, conservative, Republican politicians opposed to funding basic scientific research. We have an even a larger number of our fellow citizens (mostly Republicans or leaning Republican in their political affiliation) who have been convinced – through propaganda from outlets such as Fox News – that Government investment in science is a waste of money, at best, and a plot to destroy our economy and way of life, at worst.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. We need more government investment in scientific research in many fields, including climate science, not less. The research done by the folks at the Brookhaven National Laboratory is just one example of that.