Why should public-sector funds pay for private-sector risks?

The Titan submersible that captivated the nation late last month likely imploded hours before it was reported missing. This means that the risky five-day search undertaken to rescue the five people onboard was, ultimately, unnecessary.

With this information unknown when the search began, the United States and Canadian Coast Guards and Navy, as well as private ships, all worked tirelessly to find the submersible and rescue its passengers. The full cost of such an undertaking is unknown at this time. It may not in fact ever be publicly reported, even though the preponderance of such funds are public, paid for by taxpayers in both countries.

This situation brings to light choices that must be made when undertaking massive efforts that use public funds in response to failed private endeavors that place people’s lives at risk.

In an ideal world, where there are unlimited resources, the bar for using public funds in such circumstances is quite low. Yet just after the nation went through a contentious debt ceiling debate and negotiation, there is an inconsistency between how decisions are made and reality.

When soldiers’ lives are lost in war, the government and the nation willingly take responsibility, ensuring that such fighters’ lives are honored. If soldiers’ lives are at risk in battle, every reasonable effort is made to save them. This is appropriate, given their service to the country. These are public efforts in support of public good.

If a commercial airplane crashes into the ocean, every effort should be made to recover the airplane wreck, since the “black box” (which is actually orange) and other parts of the fuselage may provide important information on what caused the incident and what can be done for other flights to prevent such a disaster.

For the Titan submersible, at least two of the five passengers were tourists who paid $250,000 each for a unique, once-in-a-lifetime experience. It carried with it significant risks, as their waiver indicated. The excursion also included a French diver who had made several dives to the Titanic during his life, as well as the founder and CEO of OceanGate, providing some measure of security that the risks noted in the waiver were more legal than practical.

As it turned out, this was not the case.

The ethics of how public funds should be used in response to high-risk private events turned deadly demands discussion. This places the government as the de facto insurer of such events. If the disaster never occurred, millions of dollars would not have been spent. What could this money have been used for instead?

Did the organizations who were part of the search gain something for the money spent? Will the knowledge acquired in recovering the debris have public value? Could experiments have been conducted at significantly lower costs to acquire such knowledge? In essence, what did the public gain for what turned out to be an unnecessary and costly rescue effort?   

These are difficult questions that require thought and reflection. They must also be addressed, as our nation’s resources continue to shrink. It is far more effective to craft guiding principles to make such decisions not during a crisis but long before, so that reason rather than emotion dictates policy and action.

Such a debate does not minimize the tragedy of five people losing their lives. In fact, it highlights why every life is valuable, and that every person must accept responsibility for their choices in life. 

Governments can and should provide guardrails on many activities that have widespread benefits. Seat belts and speed limits on highways reduce automobile fatalities. Standards for agriculture and livestock support the safety of our food supply.

Yet when individuals engage in private activities that carry with them high levels of risk, such people must also accept the consequences if such activities go awry. That means public efforts may be made in such events. However, the expectation of public efforts is unrealistic.

As technology makes it possible for people to go on pleasure trips into space or deep into the ocean, public funds may not always be available to cover private-sector risks. There are far too many public needs that such funds could be used for.

Once all the smoke settles, every person must take responsibility for his or her choices.  Even if the government could afford to take on such responsibility, is it fair to do so?

Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a founder professor in computer science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. A data scientist, he applies his expertise in data-driven risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy and public health.