3 ms·

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 a

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.

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.