Dr. Stephen Chu, President-elect Barack Obama’s selection to head the Department of Energy, is a vocal proponent of wasting taxpayer money on research & development for alternative energy. Dr. Chu prefers to think of state r&d as an “investment,” but “waste” is the appropriate terminology.
The fundamental shortcoming of government funded R&D is government’s inability to successfully perform the development part. That’s the process by which an innovation (itself a product of the research component) is brought to the market and made economically viable. It culminates when consumers find value in the aforementioned innovation, and start to buy it in sufficient quantities to make the enterprise of that innovation profitable.
It is a complex process that is dependent on myriad intangibles, such as trial-and-error tinkering and circumstance. Successful development is diffuse and unpredictable…..
…..To read the rest, click on this link, which will take you to our energy and global warming blog at globalwarming.org. Then subscribe to globalwarming.org, so that you can read all our cheeky posts.
Loading ...
I'm a both a libertarian and a scientist with a Ph.D. who is interested in commercializing my work, so I will politely disagree with you. Government funded R&D is indeed an investment, but your scope is too narrow to see it, but I will get back to that in a moment.
To me it sounds like your ideal scenario is for a scientist who receives government funds to work out a solution to a problem that has immediate commercial potential. There is a very serious misunderstanding on your part about what constitutes science. The purpose of science from a scientist’s perspective is to advance our collective understanding of physical phenomena that may or may not give us better control over our environment. Wealth creation is almost never the initial goal of a scientist.
There are two theories about how science works: (1) there is a quantum leap in understanding of basic phenomena, i.e. classical mechanics to quantum mechanics or our classical understand of space to a relativistic understanding of space and (2) incremental (but not necessarily slow) progress in our current understanding. I can guarantee scenario (1) is necessary but not sufficient for commercialization. A case in point is satellites. Ignore for the moment everything else that goes into a satellite (electronics, rocketry, etc.) and assume we only understand space-time at the level of classical physics; think Newton and an apple dropping from a tree. Your satellite would fall from the sky and burn in the atmosphere upon re-entry because you did not know to take into account the curvature of space-time in the calculation for the satellite trajectory.
Our two industries based entirely on our understanding of both quantum mechanics and relativity are the semi-conductor and aerospace industries. Neither quantum mechanics nor relativity at the point of their initial development had any clear applications, but were both government-funded areas of science. Furthermore, all discoveries today have only been incriminations of knowledge and would not have been possible without a solid foundation of fundamental research. Another case in point is the work of Nobel laureate William Shockley, who because of the government-funded work on quantum mechanics during the ’20’s, ‘30’s and ‘40’s was able develop the transistor at Bell Labs.
Our economic return on a small investment in science is very clear, since our entire world economy is currently based on the transistor. So, my thesis is this: It might not be clear what the return will be and perhaps investment is poor choice of words for funding, but scientific research is really just a shotgun scattering ideas. As scientists we do all we can and see what sticks. The funding that goes into alternative energy may lead to the first breakthrough in an industry that does not yet exist.
Limiting government funding to those projects that will clearly lead to a commercial application would truly be a misuse of funds, and should be left to the private sector. Efficient markets take care of the ‘D’ part of government funded R&D anyway. As soon as an entrepreneur hears about a good idea, he will swoop into to capitalize off of the hard work of the scientist. Maybe a better use of government funds, would be to educate scientists in basic entrepreneurship.
From the Financial Post
http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnist...
“Whatever one's views of a bi-national bailout of the Big Three, most pundits seem to agree that a significant part of any funding must be devoted to developing “fuel-efficient cars of the future.” Apart from its multi-billion dollar share of the bailout, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper has launched a $250-million “Automotive Innovation Fund.” Meanwhile a key part of president-elect Barack Obama's plans to “stimulate” the U. S. economy involve funnelling US$150-billion over 10 years to the development of “green” technologies.
Those inclined to give credence to such grandiose plans would be well advised to read a recent book titled — somewhat misleadingly — Sex, Science & Profits, by British academic Terence Kealey. The book deals with the nature of science, the history of technology and the role of governments in promoting economic growth. It provides a devastating critique of states' failure to fund economically useful knowledge, and suggests that all spending on “technologies of the future” is likely to wind up down the drain.
Professor Kealey is not promoting some off-the-wall, right-wing economic theory. A comprehensive 2003 study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development titled “The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries,” found that the only useful R&D came from private sources and that public R&D funding tended to have negative consequences.
Professor Kealey provides the history and psychology behind this inconvenient truth, and sets out to explode the pervasive notion — first propounded by the prototypical 17th-century English policy wonk, Sir Francis Bacon — that science is a “public good” that needs to be promoted by governments.
In a sweeping analysis, Professor Kealey notes that advances in both science and technology have — from the steam engine to radio astronomy — come overwhelmingly from the private sector. “Powerful” states, from Egypt through China to modern Russia, have held up technological advance rather than promoted it. The vast U. S. expenditure on research in the wake of the Sputnik scare in the 1950s managed to put a man on the moon, but has (strategic considerations to one side) done little or nothing for the well-being of the average American.”
Great post, k1okworkor! I was going to have at it, but you put it very well indeed.
Even Bell Labs, where the transistor was actually reduced to practice, qualifies as “government funded” R&D since the kind of research and development they did was only made possible by Bell's legal monopoly. I am not advocating legal monopolies in general, but that is simply a fact.
The “D” is far more possible outside of commercial R&D than the authors acknowledge. The process is better characterized as “Research, Development, and Commercialization”. While commercial enterprise is capable of doing a bang-up job in all three, government has a strong, and sometimes essential, role in the first two. Where entrepreneurs and commercial enterprise really make a unique contribution is in commercialization.
RE: radio astronomy
Yep, I was shopping for a VLA over at Best Buys, and, WOW, they just came out with a new line of EVLA's !!! Check 'em out: http://www.nrao.edu/index.php/about/facilities/...