4 ms·

The evidence is this: try to name one private corporation that either internally or externally funds basic research that is guaranteed to have no application i

by Cyph0n 9y ago

The evidence is this: try to name one private corporation that either internally or externally funds basic research that is guaranteed to have no application in the next 10 years at the very least. You most probably can't. The reason is that private corporations have a very short-term outlook and are (understandably) looking for short-term returns.

replicatorblog 9y ago
Depends on how you define basic research. I don't think there is a tremendous amount of difference in the type of research being conducted at many departments at MIT and Google or SpaceX. I recently had dinner with a Harvard Medical School professor who said he often encouraged bright academically-minded students to go to work at Google rather than pursue the tenure track because Google offered more freedom and a simpler path to resources.
- speedplane 9y ago
  The incentives are totally different. Industry will fund research if it may potentially provide an ROI. Google and SpaceX may be willing to take bigger and longer term risks, but ROI is unquestionably their goal. Academics aren't incentivized by ROI. Instead, they want intellectual distinction and recognition, and pursue problems if they are perceived to be intellectually curious or may have a large impact on society. Sometimes the actual work that is being done can overlap, but underneath the motivations are completely different, and each have their own pros and cons. We need both.
  - replicatorblog 9y ago
    Yes and no. I'm not sure Google's research into glucose-sensing contact lenses is motivated by R&D in any sense a Wall Street analyst would recognize. Likewise with their research into life extension science. These are decade long bets that do not slot into any commercial structure at the company. Sure, if they cure death, it'll be huge, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of urgency, or ability, to commercialize that research. More important than ROI are these two factors (IMO): + The founders retain a lot of control via the company stock structure, are nerds, and seemingly want to recreate a Bell Labs style culture. + Doing crazy science keeps up their brand as a tech thought leader current, even though 95% of their revenue comes from a pretty simple set of products that about 20 years old. This helps them recruit the best and brightest. Doing this kind of research also gives them a plausible potential growth story to sell to the Street. So it's not that commerce doesn't cross their mind, but it's not in the short-term sense that a lot of people think of it as. I'm not opposed to university research, I just think people underweight the corporate side's contributions.
    - speedplane 9y ago
      Google can't just research glucose-sensing contact lenses, they have to publicize their research. They have to show that they are an innovator, either for recruitment as you say, or to impress Wall St, which is definitely all about ROI. I'm sure plenty in the company do care about technology and innovation, but they are still answerable to shareholders. This plays out plenty at Google. They make a big splash investing in a speculative technology, devote a huge team to it for a year or two, then dump it to move on to the next big thing. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it's not the same as academia.
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      I don't think anyone is saying it's impossible for that kind of research to happen within companies. Just that it's difficult to get adequate amounts of it done by companies, because of things like companies needing to be profitable. Not many companies are or can be like Google.
    - eecc 9y ago
      Sorry but - however inspiring this story may be - I as a citizen don’t want to abdicate my role in society in the decision process and suffice myself to consume. Google may be top “freedom of research” today but it’s a private property I have no influence or stake whatsoever; one day they take a u-turn and “spring clean” all. I can’t trust a couple guys just because “they’re nerds”, that’s not a long enough guarantee. You actually used Bell Labs as an example... is it still as prominent today as it was? Why not?
      - replicatorblog 9y ago
        That's fine. But any argument against Google as a private property applies equally to Harvard (and the entire Ivy League), Stanford, MIT, etc. State universities are great, but they're not where the lion's share of Nobel-caliber research is done. In the US, Private schools lead 10:1 in the Nobel race: (https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the-most-nobel-prize-winners/ https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the...).
- fulafel 9y ago
  MIT is nominally an applied research institution. They do have basic research too, into topics that Google or SpaceX wouldn't do (see eg. http://math.mit.edu/research/pure/index.php http://math.mit.edu/research/pure/index.php) I'm not sure if the difference is meaningful, there's essential applied research too that private companies wouldn't do. Like cosmology. It's hard to see how we would have gotten quantum computers without decades of enormous public budgets for basically aimless basic research.
dmpk2k 9y ago
Microsoft. :p Before that: Xerox and AT&T. Google did too at first with their car are robotics venture s. Admittedly sparse pickings...
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  Xerox and AT&T were true outliers. And I would name IBM before Microsoft. Still, as far as I know, neither MS nor IBM funds truly basic research without considering some kind of potential return. On the other hand, the NSF doesn't consider ROI at all because it's funded by us taxpayers.
dnautics 9y ago
SRI. HHMI. Rockefeller institute. Back in the day, the Glynn research institute discovered the chemiosmotic effect.
- tcpekin 9y ago
  These are all non-profits that work closely with a university and have basic research as a premise. They are both privately and publicly funded. I think that is different than a private corporation. Having worked in R&D at GM, and currently applying to jobs as I exit graduate school, the trend that I have seen personally as well as talking to many research scientists at private corporations is that R&D is an expense and must be focused on a business case. In discussion with some long term employees at some of the most research-motivated companies, this is in contrast to what private research was 20 years ago. Number of people, funding, and capabilities have been in decline. General Motors used to have an applied math research group and 10x more people in R&D! This led to things like the catalytic converter, the artificial heart valve and more. From what I have seen, nowadays private research will quickly test out a problem over the course of 6 months to maximum of a year, but will not do a 5-10 year project like academia has the freedom to do. These projects also like @gp stated, must have an application and not just be intellectually stimulating. Take it for what you will, this has just been my experience, but there are massively different purposes for current day private vs public research, which didn't use to be the case.
  - dnautics 9y ago
    Nonprofits are still private research (private != For-profit) and hhmi operates janelia farms, which is not attached to a university. Glynn research was not connected to anything. Still I deliberately omitted places like the genomics institute of the Novartis foundation and the Craig venter institute, since they are more closely tied to industry. Not all of their results are directly profit driven. For example gnf's protein structure database effort where they systrmatically crstallized most proteins from an extremophile, was a huge tour de force in basic science, though they did complete it over a short time frame because they could.

by Cyph0n 9y ago

replicatorblog 9y ago

Depends on how you define basic research. I don't think there is a tremendous amount of difference in the type of research being conducted at many departments at MIT and Google or SpaceX. I recently had dinner with a Harvard Medical School professor who said he often encouraged bright academically-minded students to go to work at Google rather than pursue the tenure track because Google offered more freedom and a simpler path to resources.

speedplane 9y ago
The incentives are totally different. Industry will fund research if it may potentially provide an ROI. Google and SpaceX may be willing to take bigger and longer term risks, but ROI is unquestionably their goal. Academics aren't incentivized by ROI. Instead, they want intellectual distinction and recognition, and pursue problems if they are perceived to be intellectually curious or may have a large impact on society. Sometimes the actual work that is being done can overlap, but underneath the motivations are completely different, and each have their own pros and cons. We need both.
- replicatorblog 9y ago
  Yes and no. I'm not sure Google's research into glucose-sensing contact lenses is motivated by R&D in any sense a Wall Street analyst would recognize. Likewise with their research into life extension science. These are decade long bets that do not slot into any commercial structure at the company. Sure, if they cure death, it'll be huge, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of urgency, or ability, to commercialize that research. More important than ROI are these two factors (IMO): + The founders retain a lot of control via the company stock structure, are nerds, and seemingly want to recreate a Bell Labs style culture. + Doing crazy science keeps up their brand as a tech thought leader current, even though 95% of their revenue comes from a pretty simple set of products that about 20 years old. This helps them recruit the best and brightest. Doing this kind of research also gives them a plausible potential growth story to sell to the Street. So it's not that commerce doesn't cross their mind, but it's not in the short-term sense that a lot of people think of it as. I'm not opposed to university research, I just think people underweight the corporate side's contributions.
  - speedplane 9y ago
    Google can't just research glucose-sensing contact lenses, they have to publicize their research. They have to show that they are an innovator, either for recruitment as you say, or to impress Wall St, which is definitely all about ROI. I'm sure plenty in the company do care about technology and innovation, but they are still answerable to shareholders. This plays out plenty at Google. They make a big splash investing in a speculative technology, devote a huge team to it for a year or two, then dump it to move on to the next big thing. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it's not the same as academia.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    I don't think anyone is saying it's impossible for that kind of research to happen within companies. Just that it's difficult to get adequate amounts of it done by companies, because of things like companies needing to be profitable. Not many companies are or can be like Google.
  - eecc 9y ago
    Sorry but - however inspiring this story may be - I as a citizen don’t want to abdicate my role in society in the decision process and suffice myself to consume. Google may be top “freedom of research” today but it’s a private property I have no influence or stake whatsoever; one day they take a u-turn and “spring clean” all. I can’t trust a couple guys just because “they’re nerds”, that’s not a long enough guarantee. You actually used Bell Labs as an example... is it still as prominent today as it was? Why not?
    - replicatorblog 9y ago
      That's fine. But any argument against Google as a private property applies equally to Harvard (and the entire Ivy League), Stanford, MIT, etc. State universities are great, but they're not where the lion's share of Nobel-caliber research is done. In the US, Private schools lead 10:1 in the Nobel race: (https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the-most-nobel-prize-winners/ https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the...).
fulafel 9y ago
MIT is nominally an applied research institution. They do have basic research too, into topics that Google or SpaceX wouldn't do (see eg. http://math.mit.edu/research/pure/index.php http://math.mit.edu/research/pure/index.php) I'm not sure if the difference is meaningful, there's essential applied research too that private companies wouldn't do. Like cosmology. It's hard to see how we would have gotten quantum computers without decades of enormous public budgets for basically aimless basic research.

dmpk2k 9y ago

Microsoft. :p Before that: Xerox and AT&T. Google did too at first with their car are robotics venture s. Admittedly sparse pickings...

Cyph0n 9y ago
Xerox and AT&T were true outliers. And I would name IBM before Microsoft. Still, as far as I know, neither MS nor IBM funds truly basic research without considering some kind of potential return. On the other hand, the NSF doesn't consider ROI at all because it's funded by us taxpayers.

dnautics 9y ago

SRI. HHMI. Rockefeller institute. Back in the day, the Glynn research institute discovered the chemiosmotic effect.

tcpekin 9y ago
These are all non-profits that work closely with a university and have basic research as a premise. They are both privately and publicly funded. I think that is different than a private corporation. Having worked in R&D at GM, and currently applying to jobs as I exit graduate school, the trend that I have seen personally as well as talking to many research scientists at private corporations is that R&D is an expense and must be focused on a business case. In discussion with some long term employees at some of the most research-motivated companies, this is in contrast to what private research was 20 years ago. Number of people, funding, and capabilities have been in decline. General Motors used to have an applied math research group and 10x more people in R&D! This led to things like the catalytic converter, the artificial heart valve and more. From what I have seen, nowadays private research will quickly test out a problem over the course of 6 months to maximum of a year, but will not do a 5-10 year project like academia has the freedom to do. These projects also like @gp stated, must have an application and not just be intellectually stimulating. Take it for what you will, this has just been my experience, but there are massively different purposes for current day private vs public research, which didn't use to be the case.
- dnautics 9y ago
  Nonprofits are still private research (private != For-profit) and hhmi operates janelia farms, which is not attached to a university. Glynn research was not connected to anything. Still I deliberately omitted places like the genomics institute of the Novartis foundation and the Craig venter institute, since they are more closely tied to industry. Not all of their results are directly profit driven. For example gnf's protein structure database effort where they systrmatically crstallized most proteins from an extremophile, was a huge tour de force in basic science, though they did complete it over a short time frame because they could.

The evidence is this: try to name one private corporation that either internally or externally funds basic research that is guaranteed​ to have no application i

The evidence is this: try to name one private corporation that either internally or externally funds basic research that is guaranteed​ to have no application i

The evidence is this: try to name one private corporation that either internally or externally funds basic research that is guaranteed to have no application i

The evidence is this: try to name one private corporation that either internally or externally funds basic research that is guaranteed to have no application i