9 ms·

That's a shame. I'd like to believe that large companies like Google could throw a bit of cash towards open-ended problems. Realistically it's large companies,

by Niksko 11y ago

That's a shame. I'd like to believe that large companies like Google could throw a bit of cash towards open-ended problems. Realistically it's large companies, governments (please no) and research institutions that can afford to think on large timescales. Governments don't and probably shouldn't, research institutions are fine, but large corporations with nice payscales also feel to me like they should be taking part.

nmrm2 11y ago
Government augmenting research institutions has been the only consistent source of funding for research that doesn't pay out in a 2-5 year timespan. Theere's plenty of waste in the government, but you'd be hard-pressed to find the typical types of government waste or incompetence in for example the NSF. Unless you believe basic science is wasteful I guess.
- mturmon 11y ago
  Here's a neat example of government support for telescopes from a few years ago: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2016/02/the-galilean-moons.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2016/02/the-galilean-moons.html "Galileo Galilei most humbly prostrates himself before Your Highness ... to write of having decided to present to Your Highness a telescope that will be a great help in maritime and land enterprises. ... This telescope has the advantage of discovering the ships of the enemy two hours before they can be seen with the natural vision and to distinguish the number and quality of the ships and to judge their strength ..."
dorfsmay 11y ago
Isn't a lot of medical research funded by governments? Wasn't Pasteur essentially working for the government when he made his discoveries?
- dekhn 11y ago
  In the US, the NIH invests $30B/yr (and other agencies also fund medical research). Note, they're more expansive: much of the research has been into basic biology with no immediate applications (often called pure research, although we were trained to always say the research would eventually leading to curing cancer). England and Japan also do this. Much of the most impactful research has taken decades to play out and the original research didn't necessarily have medical goals, but turned out to be necessary to making progress. Some companies have high enough profit margins to dedicate large budgets to research with no immediate applications. Genentech is the first one that comes to mind, but there are others. It takes a great deal of courage to fund this sort of research when you are a CSO or CEO because of constant calls for immediate profits. I've seen this play out for so long- in biology, in physics, and IT- that I've become inured to the idea that most good ideas take decades to play out until the profits arrive. I am not entirely certain whether it's correct to say Pasteur was working for the government. When a scientist reaches his level of stature, she pays her own ticket.
astazangasta 11y ago
>Governments don't and probably shouldn't The extreme irony of you writing this comment on the Internet should not go unnoticed. Are you really unaware of the extent to which the government underpins all of the interesting long range research in the country?
- toufka 11y ago
  Exactly. The government is the only institution which reliably doles out full-sized grants (free money) for projects with horizons on the order of years. And institutional grants on the order of decades.
- dekhn 11y ago
  In a sense, the Internet is the poster child for this, because the alternatives funded and promoted by the telecom industry was so closed that it never grew. The rapid growth of the internet happened because the government funded it for many years (pre-ARPAnet, ARPAnet/NSFNet/etc, then Internet) before it was really ready to expand rapidly. Then, when it was growing rapidly, it funded people to study tech that allowed it to continue to grow rapidly. AT&T and ITU and others never would have been able to do this with the tech they promoted- we'd all be using 56Kbps modems to call BBSes today if they had won.
  - rubber_duck 11y ago
    >AT&T and ITU and others never would have been able to do this with the tech they promoted- we'd all be using 56Kbps modems to call BBSes today if they had won. This is such a ridiculous statement I can't tell if it's sarcasm (from the post I guess not - but that's the kind og argument I'd make if I wanted to make a strawman argument on this), extreeme hyperbole or you really beleive it ?
    - dekhn 11y ago
      I've studied the history of the internet and have also talked extensively with ppl on both sides of the discussion. At best we'd still be using ISDN which isn't much better than 56kbs
ThomPete 11y ago
Governments are the only ones who actually benefit from thinking long term in the sense that they are the best distributer of the knowledge that comes out of basic research. Quantum Physics was more or less a governmental sponsored project. The Internet was a governmental sponsored project. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is the ultimate risk taking and governments not private institutions should perform this as government are the ones who benefit the most.
- maaku 11y ago
  UNIX was... Oh wait.
  - dekhn 11y ago
    UNIX was derived from MULTICS, which was partially funded by DARPA grants.
    - bboreham 11y ago
      "derived from" in the sense of "complete opposite in every way". Edit: ok, maybe not _every_ way. Pipes are "inspired by an idea from Multics". https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/hist.html https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/hist.html
      - dekhn 11y ago
        No, it's not completely opposite. You can see UNIX as a simplification of Multics (with the name being a very nice pun!), dropping most of the really hard-to-implement features and focusing on a simple core. Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie were programmers on Multics and they admitted lifting features from Multics to implement UNIX. Many of the things that Multics had eventually made their way back into various UNIX derivatives, because they were great features that a modern OS wants to have. Multics was way ahead of its time in many ways.
        vram22 11y ago
dekhn 11y ago
Historically, the governments have been the most effective long-term funders of science. THere is an entire class of scientists in the US (Europe, Japan, etc) who exist because of the government's heavy spending to train students (this has sometimes become a problem, for example the US trained so many bioscientists that when the funding froze a few years later, the market became saturated and many of us left for Industry.
- tryitnow 11y ago
  Is it really a problem if government scientists leave for industry?
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    1. It's a problem for students who invested their time (and possibly money, but certainly opporunity cost) in this training. "Sucks for them, not my problem" is 1) excessively uncharitable, and 2) confuses personal interest with overall social goodness. Don't get me wrong -- it's totally understandable for you to say "is that really a problem that we should try to fix?". And in a lot of cases I probably even agree with you! But it's less understandable for you to simply say "that's not a problem". 2. Suppose you don't care about providing steady scientific employment for individual scientists but do value scientific progress (I find this position contradictory to the point of absurdity, but let's roll with it). Even in this case, cyclical funding cuts are still a source of waste: a) society essentially wasted money subsidizing the education of people who are now not using their training (some might be, but probably many aren't). b) funding freezes are often temporary, but by the time spending rebounds all those scientists you spent billions of dollars training have moved on to indsutry (research or no). So now you have to double down and train a new generation in order to make progress.
    - dekhn 11y ago
      Yeah, my plan was always to get a full professor position at a mid-tier university. Had I known the NIH budget would have been frozen, I would have not gone to grad school and instead worked for Yahoo pre-IPO, and today I'd be a many-times-over millionaire funding a new crop of scientists out of my money.
MisterBastahrd 11y ago
You'd be writing this on a typewriter and pinning it to a board with a thumbtack in a town square if it weren't for government research into computer technology and the internet.
coliveira 11y ago
Government is in fact the only kind of institution that can finance science in the good and bad times. Companies have too much of a short-term profit-driven incentive to fund basic science. They can even do that for short periods, when everything looks rosy and they want to attract talent (examples are AT&T, Google, HP, etc.), but profit is so important that they will cut these investment as soon as necessary to improve other areas of the company.

by Niksko 11y ago

nmrm2 11y ago

Government augmenting research institutions has been the only consistent source of funding for research that doesn't pay out in a 2-5 year timespan. Theere's plenty of waste in the government, but you'd be hard-pressed to find the typical types of government waste or incompetence in for example the NSF. Unless you believe basic science is wasteful I guess.

mturmon 11y ago
Here's a neat example of government support for telescopes from a few years ago: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2016/02/the-galilean-moons.html http://www.lettersofnote.com/2016/02/the-galilean-moons.html "Galileo Galilei most humbly prostrates himself before Your Highness ... to write of having decided to present to Your Highness a telescope that will be a great help in maritime and land enterprises. ... This telescope has the advantage of discovering the ships of the enemy two hours before they can be seen with the natural vision and to distinguish the number and quality of the ships and to judge their strength ..."

dorfsmay 11y ago

Isn't a lot of medical research funded by governments? Wasn't Pasteur essentially working for the government when he made his discoveries?

dekhn 11y ago
In the US, the NIH invests $30B/yr (and other agencies also fund medical research). Note, they're more expansive: much of the research has been into basic biology with no immediate applications (often called pure research, although we were trained to always say the research would eventually leading to curing cancer). England and Japan also do this. Much of the most impactful research has taken decades to play out and the original research didn't necessarily have medical goals, but turned out to be necessary to making progress. Some companies have high enough profit margins to dedicate large budgets to research with no immediate applications. Genentech is the first one that comes to mind, but there are others. It takes a great deal of courage to fund this sort of research when you are a CSO or CEO because of constant calls for immediate profits. I've seen this play out for so long- in biology, in physics, and IT- that I've become inured to the idea that most good ideas take decades to play out until the profits arrive. I am not entirely certain whether it's correct to say Pasteur was working for the government. When a scientist reaches his level of stature, she pays her own ticket.

astazangasta 11y ago

>Governments don't and probably shouldn't The extreme irony of you writing this comment on the Internet should not go unnoticed. Are you really unaware of the extent to which the government underpins all of the interesting long range research in the country?

toufka 11y ago
Exactly. The government is the only institution which reliably doles out full-sized grants (free money) for projects with horizons on the order of years. And institutional grants on the order of decades.
dekhn 11y ago
In a sense, the Internet is the poster child for this, because the alternatives funded and promoted by the telecom industry was so closed that it never grew. The rapid growth of the internet happened because the government funded it for many years (pre-ARPAnet, ARPAnet/NSFNet/etc, then Internet) before it was really ready to expand rapidly. Then, when it was growing rapidly, it funded people to study tech that allowed it to continue to grow rapidly. AT&T and ITU and others never would have been able to do this with the tech they promoted- we'd all be using 56Kbps modems to call BBSes today if they had won.
- rubber_duck 11y ago
  >AT&T and ITU and others never would have been able to do this with the tech they promoted- we'd all be using 56Kbps modems to call BBSes today if they had won. This is such a ridiculous statement I can't tell if it's sarcasm (from the post I guess not - but that's the kind og argument I'd make if I wanted to make a strawman argument on this), extreeme hyperbole or you really beleive it ?
  - dekhn 11y ago
    I've studied the history of the internet and have also talked extensively with ppl on both sides of the discussion. At best we'd still be using ISDN which isn't much better than 56kbs

ThomPete 11y ago

Governments are the only ones who actually benefit from thinking long term in the sense that they are the best distributer of the knowledge that comes out of basic research. Quantum Physics was more or less a governmental sponsored project. The Internet was a governmental sponsored project. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is the ultimate risk taking and governments not private institutions should perform this as government are the ones who benefit the most.

maaku 11y ago
UNIX was... Oh wait.
- dekhn 11y ago
  UNIX was derived from MULTICS, which was partially funded by DARPA grants.
  - bboreham 11y ago
    "derived from" in the sense of "complete opposite in every way". Edit: ok, maybe not _every_ way. Pipes are "inspired by an idea from Multics". https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/hist.html https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/hist.html
    - dekhn 11y ago
      No, it's not completely opposite. You can see UNIX as a simplification of Multics (with the name being a very nice pun!), dropping most of the really hard-to-implement features and focusing on a simple core. Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie were programmers on Multics and they admitted lifting features from Multics to implement UNIX. Many of the things that Multics had eventually made their way back into various UNIX derivatives, because they were great features that a modern OS wants to have. Multics was way ahead of its time in many ways.
      - vram22 11y ago

dekhn 11y ago

Historically, the governments have been the most effective long-term funders of science. THere is an entire class of scientists in the US (Europe, Japan, etc) who exist because of the government's heavy spending to train students (this has sometimes become a problem, for example the US trained so many bioscientists that when the funding froze a few years later, the market became saturated and many of us left for Industry.

tryitnow 11y ago
Is it really a problem if government scientists leave for industry?
- nmrm2 11y ago
  1. It's a problem for students who invested their time (and possibly money, but certainly opporunity cost) in this training. "Sucks for them, not my problem" is 1) excessively uncharitable, and 2) confuses personal interest with overall social goodness. Don't get me wrong -- it's totally understandable for you to say "is that really a problem that we should try to fix?". And in a lot of cases I probably even agree with you! But it's less understandable for you to simply say "that's not a problem". 2. Suppose you don't care about providing steady scientific employment for individual scientists but do value scientific progress (I find this position contradictory to the point of absurdity, but let's roll with it). Even in this case, cyclical funding cuts are still a source of waste: a) society essentially wasted money subsidizing the education of people who are now not using their training (some might be, but probably many aren't). b) funding freezes are often temporary, but by the time spending rebounds all those scientists you spent billions of dollars training have moved on to indsutry (research or no). So now you have to double down and train a new generation in order to make progress.
  - dekhn 11y ago
    Yeah, my plan was always to get a full professor position at a mid-tier university. Had I known the NIH budget would have been frozen, I would have not gone to grad school and instead worked for Yahoo pre-IPO, and today I'd be a many-times-over millionaire funding a new crop of scientists out of my money.

MisterBastahrd 11y ago

You'd be writing this on a typewriter and pinning it to a board with a thumbtack in a town square if it weren't for government research into computer technology and the internet.

coliveira 11y ago

Government is in fact the only kind of institution that can finance science in the good and bad times. Companies have too much of a short-term profit-driven incentive to fund basic science. They can even do that for short periods, when everything looks rosy and they want to attract talent (examples are AT&T, Google, HP, etc.), but profit is so important that they will cut these investment as soon as necessary to improve other areas of the company.