Who was Vannevar Bush? Why you should know
The government/industry partnership that existed from WW2 through ~1980 fueled the technological innovation that defined the USA and we are still benefiting from the partnership today, though the pipeline is beginning to run dry. With the ascendance of applied research and connecting all research with specific economic return targets plus a lack of understanding by policy makers of how fundamental research historically provided unknown-at-the-time economic benefit decades later, we entered a period of R&D decline in about 1980 that we still suffer from today.
Governments demand accountability from those receiving taxpayer-funded research dollars. And they should. But results from fundamental science don’t appear in the country’s health, economic or military pipeline overnight. Sometimes it can take decades from the first promising scientific observation to a tangible product. Sometimes that product is simply an increase in human knowledge without a physical ‘widget’ ever being produced. Sometimes the results from fundamental research help a researcher in another field make a breakthrough by simply learning of someone else’s seemingly unrelated research. (This is another reason scientific conferences are important – at topic for a future blog entry.)
Industry isn’t any better; in fact, it may be worse. The bottom line, a return on investment, is what matters in the world of business. This is where applied research is more reasonable. In counterpoint, don’t forget that Bell Labs performed fundamental research that led to incredibly profitable technologies. Still, with an eye on quarter-to-quarter profitability, sustained research funded by industry doesn’t happen very often.
Policy makers should familiarize themselves with the life of Vannevar Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar...) and rethink the current government/industry partnership model. We need to return to the post-WW2 model that Bush helped put into place. This partnership led to an incredible period of research, technological creativity and innovation – a history lesson worth understanding.
Governments demand accountability from those receiving taxpayer-funded research dollars. And they should. But results from fundamental science don’t appear in the country’s health, economic or military pipeline overnight. Sometimes it can take decades from the first promising scientific observation to a tangible product. Sometimes that product is simply an increase in human knowledge without a physical ‘widget’ ever being produced. Sometimes the results from fundamental research help a researcher in another field make a breakthrough by simply learning of someone else’s seemingly unrelated research. (This is another reason scientific conferences are important – at topic for a future blog entry.)
Industry isn’t any better; in fact, it may be worse. The bottom line, a return on investment, is what matters in the world of business. This is where applied research is more reasonable. In counterpoint, don’t forget that Bell Labs performed fundamental research that led to incredibly profitable technologies. Still, with an eye on quarter-to-quarter profitability, sustained research funded by industry doesn’t happen very often.
Policy makers should familiarize themselves with the life of Vannevar Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar...) and rethink the current government/industry partnership model. We need to return to the post-WW2 model that Bush helped put into place. This partnership led to an incredible period of research, technological creativity and innovation – a history lesson worth understanding.
Published on July 07, 2013 11:11
No comments have been added yet.
Space, Science, and Entertainment
Last weekend, I attended the LibertyCon science fiction convention in Chattanooga and participated in several panels. Once of the most interesting was a discussion of “The End of Civilization.” The pa
Last weekend, I attended the LibertyCon science fiction convention in Chattanooga and participated in several panels. Once of the most interesting was a discussion of “The End of Civilization.” The panelists (mostly authors and scientists) discussed way they thought the world -- human civilization -- might end. It was interesting enough to post the initial listing here:
Michael Z. Williamson “The Yellowstone Supervolcano”
Tedd Roberts “Drug research run amok”
Steven Cobb “Asteroid impact”
Julie Cochrane “A Carrington Event”
John Ringo “A bioengineered virus”
Patrick Vanner “Cyber attack”
Llian Price “Infectious disease”
Catherine Asaro “The Singularity”
And, finally, my initial contribution “Online virtual reality addiction”
The list grew during the hour-long discussion – what’s your favorite?
...more
Michael Z. Williamson “The Yellowstone Supervolcano”
Tedd Roberts “Drug research run amok”
Steven Cobb “Asteroid impact”
Julie Cochrane “A Carrington Event”
John Ringo “A bioengineered virus”
Patrick Vanner “Cyber attack”
Llian Price “Infectious disease”
Catherine Asaro “The Singularity”
And, finally, my initial contribution “Online virtual reality addiction”
The list grew during the hour-long discussion – what’s your favorite?
...more
- Les Johnson's profile
- 70 followers

