The future applicability of current pure research is effectively impossible to predict. Except we know that, without it, there will be no progress.
Often there is about a 50 year lag between pure research and any practical application.
Current national security concerns may hinge on the development of quantum computing. It can theoretically break current encryption.
This is based on pure research done by Feynman and others in the 80s. At the time, it seemed purely theoretical.
All this is based on a good understanding of quantum mechanics, which was still being done in the 80s. For example, the Aspect experiences which are experimentally verified the āspooky action at a distanceā upon which quantum computing depends, was done in the early 80s.
This understanding of quantum mechanics depends on early work in the 1930s and before.
Iām sure similar arguments can tie, for example, current gene therapy for cancer to CRISPR, to pure research in genetics in the 80s, to the discovery of DNA in the 1950s.
My point is those gains are outsized. All because we scrape something back in income taxes is small relative to the value created from public investment.
Thereās typically a very long lag between the toe of basic research the government funds and the practical research that leads to saleable products. Parents would almost always have expired. And itās good that patents expire and information entered the public domain.
When practical, it would be nice if the government kept a financial interest in that research. But most estimates are that the economy benefits substantially from our public research, and we all live in a richer and better world as a result.
And, as i said above, our research spending is why the US has been the scientific powerhouse of the world.
Iām guessing the personal liberties he promotes will be very selective. I predict many of the opinion pieces will be gleeful about depriving certain groups of their personal liberties. Weāll see.
A lot of their reporters have already quit. Also, i just unsubscribed. Iām sad to do that, as it was a great newspaper. But it seems to becoming a mouthpiece of the administration.
Itās about organization. You can tell me about good outcomes from the current system but it doesnāt mean the system itself doesnāt need massive reform. There are very good studies on these things. Scientific progress has slowed down significantly.
Iām not sure why you mean by the ācurrent system.ā
As far as iām aware, academia as a system has changed a lot since the 1980s. It certainly is very different from the pre WW2 system that provided the foundation of quantum mechanics in one of my examples.
What has not changed in the general practice of modern science.
Things can always be run better.
But, for example, Elon Musk and some 20 somethings, who as far as Iām aware have never done any science themselves (though Musk loves to take credit for the engineering work done at his companies) simply decided that 15% overhead was appropriate for biomedical research ?
Based on what? We are supposed to believe Musk because he is rich, maybe?
It reminds me much more of the deference to personal authority that characterized the pre-modern world than anything scientific.
Aristotle was smart, so he must be right that our thinking is centered in the heart! (Not to flatter musk with a comparison to aristotle.)
I think there may be a broader misunderstanding of science by many silicon valley/tech types.
they seem to think that scientific discovery can be engineered and controlled, like software development or manufacturing a car. This is why they think we are close to AGI, which would represent the full engineering and automation of that process.
I just donāt think it works that way. Definitely not for science, maybe not even for software development?
