Posted on 10/26/2015 5:51:46 AM PDT by tlozo
Innovation is a mysteriously difficult thing to dictate. Technology seems to change by a sort of inexorable, evolutionary progress, which we probably cannot stop—or speed up much either. And it’s not much the product of science. Most technological breakthroughs come from technologists tinkering, not from researchers chasing hypotheses. Heretical as it may sound, “basic science” isn’t nearly as productive of new inventions as we tend to think…
When you examine the history of innovation, you find, again and again, that scientific breakthroughs are the effect, not the cause, of technological change. It is no accident that astronomy blossomed in the wake of the age of exploration. The steam engine owed almost nothing to the science of thermodynamics, but the science of thermodynamics owed almost everything to the steam engine.…
It follows that there is less need for government to fund science: Industry will do this itself. Having made innovations, it will then pay for research into the principles behind them…
For more than a half century, it has been an article of faith that science would not get funded if government did not do it, and economic growth would not happen if science did not get funded by the taxpayer...
In 2003, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development published a paper on the “sources of economic growth in OECD countries” and found, to its surprise, that whereas privately funded research and development stimulated economic growth, publicly funded research had no economic impact whatsoever. None…
In 2007, the economist Leo Sveikauskas of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics concluded that returns from many forms of publicly financed R&D are near zero and that “many elements of university and government research have very low returns, overwhelmingly contribute to economic growth only indirectly, if at all.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Basic scientific research funded by government is counterproductive because it misallocates resources to unproductive ends.
Like NASA during its best days, very good things can come out of government-funded research programs (NASA does fit into that category, though contextually different). That said, the system is very, very broken. Lying, cheating, cut-throat ‘researchers’ with little in the way of innovative ideas are way over-represented, and peer review has become a joke.
The fact that so many published studies can't be replicated, and so few are ever cited in the literature tells you all you need to know about how broken the system is. Publishing is a game, in which instead of just truthfully presenting one’s findings, without hype or embellishment, researchers are encouraged by the system to over interpret their data, and come up with “a good story” to ‘sell’ to the editors and reviewers. This contributes in a very big way to false claims, and ultimately is anti-intellectual and incongruent with basic scientific principles.
Further, at all levels in science, networking and connections will get you funded much more likely than having a novel or innovative idea or hypothesis. There are ‘clubs’/’clicks’ of people who look out for each other and favor each other’s grants and submissions for publication. This is a huge problem, and tends to perpetuate lines of thought that ‘conform’ to the biases of those groups.
The above is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
I’ve long thought this.
There’s a solar generator product produced by a local university for 3rd world countries. I won’t mention the name publicly.
Anyhow, I’ve contacted them several times suggesting they publish their plans under a limited license so homesteading type people could build their systems and improve upon them. My reasoning is that several hundred independent tinkerers could likely quickly refine and improve their system essentially for free, benefiting not only the tinkerers, but the intended third world recipients. But they’re trapped in the university/research model where a bunch of college-aged “experts” come up with an optimized design and then force feed it to their victims.
It’s a difficult mindset to try and change.
That’s not even considering that the funding was probably wholly or partially public in the first place and thus the information shouldn’t be restricted.
The point of gov funding is both propaganda and cronyism.
I think the only time govt research pays its way is during wartime. Scientists are like everyone else, they need external pressure and something to aim for.
But when you get million dollar studies on monkey nuts and voice volume, time to dial it back.
Bingo!
There is a university project for a prosthetic hand. Last I checked, it was in about its 26th iteration - “more research is needed” phase.
Then there is this collaboration between a workman-tinkerer (carpenter) in need (cut off two fingers) and a mechanical prop maker.
Result - hundreds of 3D printed prosthetic hands have been fitted to kids in need.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT3772yhr0o
BTW, I am aware of the huge difference between Basic Science and Engineering/Technology.
A Basic Scientist asks, “Why?”
An Engineer says, “There has to be an easier way to do this!”
A Technologist says, “Do you want that powered by AC, DC, Pneumatics, Hydraulics or a Rubber Band? Metal, Plastic, Wood or Concrete?” Etc.
I think one aspect that stymies a lot of development is that there are just so many things out there, that no one person, or group of people, can contain the total knowledge out there.
One person from the HVAC industry might look at a design and think - there’s a widget from xx air handler that was discontinued 20 years ago that would work, and I can get the part for $8 at the local jobber.
Another guy who’s a mechanic might see a part that’s nearly identical to what came on a ‘78 volvo.
Or some engineer would find a specialty part that does exactly what’s needed in an industrial catalog for $500 each.
Or a kid at a university would design it from scratch and spend thousands.
If you expose a design to a wide variety of people outside the narrow confines of academia, you don’t just get more eyes looking at it, but you get vastly different universes of knowledge with exposure to completely different solutions.
If you expose a design to a wide variety of people outside the narrow confines of academia, you don’t just get more eyes looking at it, but you get vastly different universes of knowledge with exposure to completely different solutions.
That insight is the essence of not only Conservatism, but America. When I was younger I was a Democrat even though I knew, or cared, nothing about politics. I was a science student, and the world seemed full of idiots. To me, top-down logical organization seemed to be what was missing. Just like a science project - make it logical, put everything in the right place, get the answer.
But life isn't like that. Life both requires logic and planning, on pain of catastrophe, and it also is permanently messy, bizarre, happenstance and just pain ornery. And insight cannot be manufactured. Rather, it comes from people who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty, while still remembering to be civilized, intelligent and logical in the must of the craziness of life. And though everyone can and does argue about morality, it actually exists, and ignoring it brings death.
Young people don't know all that. It's not their fault, but in the past they kept their mouths shut and learned. Now, they are community organized and praised as geniuses, while they burn down their own culture to benefit forces that are evil beyond their wildest imaginations.
The history of inventions, writes the historian Alfred Kroeber, is “one endless chain of parallel instances.”The idea that Newton alone was responsible for calculus became “political correctness” in Britain, for patriotic reasons. Not only did Leibniz develop calculus independently, he developed notation which made calculus far easier to understand.It is just as true in science as in technology . . . Isaac Newton vented paroxysms of fury at Gottfried Leibniz for claiming, correctly, to have invented the calculus independently.
While a student Charles Babbage, later famous for trying to build a mechanical computer, went so far as to lead a rebellion against the teaching of Newton’s notation system in the explanation of calculus in college. He won, and the calculus notation we learn in school comes from Leibniz, not Newton.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite. - Eisenhower’s “Military-Industrial Complex" Speech
I've worked as a research assistant in my college days. The purpose of most college research is to generate plausible justification for the next grant.
Meanwhile, private R&D is supposed to generate SOMETHING that will be useful in making a product. Otherwise the plug is pulled.
EXACTLY! because the "scientists" no longer seek confirmation of what was hypothesized, they only seek to secure the next grant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.