5 ms·

"The tension between making money and making research strides can result in projects being abandoned altogether or pushed forward before they’re ready. " says t

by daly 10y ago

"The tension between making money and making research strides can result in projects being abandoned altogether or pushed forward before they’re ready. " says the author... which really understates the problem. When I worked at IBM Research (back when IBM actually did research), I spoke to Ralph Gomory, the head of IBM Research. He said that research costs were expensive. One million dollars supported 3 researchers for one year. One out of every 10 research efforts produced a useful result and that useful research result required 10 years to become a product. Silicon valley does not support research. Even Microsoft laid off a lot of researchers recently (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/20/micr-s20.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/20/micr-s20.html) "Microsoft cuts 2100 jobs, closes Silicon Valley Research lab") University professors live and die on grant money. It is how they fund masters and phd students. A large percent of their time is spent on writing grants, managing grants, and reporting on grants. Cut the funding and you lose not only professors but their students. Six billion dollars at 3 researchers/million/year is ... well, ask Trump do the math. Like Reagan (who closed the Federal Labs), Trump doesn't understand research.

flukus 10y ago
> Silicon valley does not support research. Even Microsoft laid off a lot of researchers recently (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/20/micr-s20.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/20/micr-s20.html) "Microsoft cuts 2100 jobs, closes Silicon Valley Research lab") In all fairness, given the scarcity of resources in research and the costs of being in silicon valley, wouldn't it be better to have research done elsewhere and get more bang for your buck?
- daly 10y ago
  "elsewhere" is the university. Historically government funded a lot of primary research, especially after Sputnik. One example of primary research is the Internet, aka "Arpanet". Now all of the "ARPA" funding is "Defense-ARPA" so projects have to have a military justification. As to "getting more bang for your buck"... that's called externalization. Make a profit by shifting costs elsewhere, such as dumping toxic coal residue into streams, leaving mining tailings containing heavy metals in piles, using highways without paying road tax, etc. Letting someone else pay for the research and then "getting more bang for the buck" is what all companies are doing now. They used to support major research labs (Xerox PARC gave us windows, mice, ethernet, etc), (Bell Labs gave us digit recognizers, high speed modems, microwave background research), (IBM gave us force microscopes, disk drives, etc). (Google and Microsoft gave us the NSA). Unfortunately if everyone decides to let everyone else pay for the research then nobody does it. Universities are the last major resource for research. Cutting government funding by 6 billion dollars means that 6 billion x 3 researchers/year/million = 18000 fewer people doing things "elsewhere"... That's a lot of professors out of jobs. That's a lot more students who don't graduate. That's a lot of research that doesn't get done. If you eat seeds you get fed today but you don't get crops for tomorrow. Of course, since research takes 10 years to mature the effects of such cuts will take 10 years to create the disaster, which makes it someone else's problem. That's ok. 6 Billion dollars will buy 24 new fighter jets. Or one aircraft carrier. Or a lot of congress persons. Or 4 years of trips to a florida golf course on weekends. Sigh.
  - sjg007 10y ago
    And a lot of brawndo
  - Arizhel 10y ago
    >That's ok. 6 Billion dollars will buy 24 new fighter jets. Or one aircraft carrier. Or a lot of congress persons. Or 4 years of trips to a florida golf course on weekends. Actually, you're wrong about the aircraft carrier, assuming you mean a Ford-class nuclear carrier. Those are up to $15B now!

by daly 10y ago

flukus 10y ago

> Silicon valley does not support research. Even Microsoft laid off a lot of researchers recently (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/20/micr-s20.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/20/micr-s20.html) "Microsoft cuts 2100 jobs, closes Silicon Valley Research lab") In all fairness, given the scarcity of resources in research and the costs of being in silicon valley, wouldn't it be better to have research done elsewhere and get more bang for your buck?

daly 10y ago
"elsewhere" is the university. Historically government funded a lot of primary research, especially after Sputnik. One example of primary research is the Internet, aka "Arpanet". Now all of the "ARPA" funding is "Defense-ARPA" so projects have to have a military justification. As to "getting more bang for your buck"... that's called externalization. Make a profit by shifting costs elsewhere, such as dumping toxic coal residue into streams, leaving mining tailings containing heavy metals in piles, using highways without paying road tax, etc. Letting someone else pay for the research and then "getting more bang for the buck" is what all companies are doing now. They used to support major research labs (Xerox PARC gave us windows, mice, ethernet, etc), (Bell Labs gave us digit recognizers, high speed modems, microwave background research), (IBM gave us force microscopes, disk drives, etc). (Google and Microsoft gave us the NSA). Unfortunately if everyone decides to let everyone else pay for the research then nobody does it. Universities are the last major resource for research. Cutting government funding by 6 billion dollars means that 6 billion x 3 researchers/year/million = 18000 fewer people doing things "elsewhere"... That's a lot of professors out of jobs. That's a lot more students who don't graduate. That's a lot of research that doesn't get done. If you eat seeds you get fed today but you don't get crops for tomorrow. Of course, since research takes 10 years to mature the effects of such cuts will take 10 years to create the disaster, which makes it someone else's problem. That's ok. 6 Billion dollars will buy 24 new fighter jets. Or one aircraft carrier. Or a lot of congress persons. Or 4 years of trips to a florida golf course on weekends. Sigh.
- sjg007 10y ago
  And a lot of brawndo
- Arizhel 10y ago
  >That's ok. 6 Billion dollars will buy 24 new fighter jets. Or one aircraft carrier. Or a lot of congress persons. Or 4 years of trips to a florida golf course on weekends. Actually, you're wrong about the aircraft carrier, assuming you mean a Ford-class nuclear carrier. Those are up to $15B now!