Big government funding is not always bad or greed based. Some projects with
national purpose do work, if leadership is focused and accountable—not diluted
by many leaders with different agendas.
The Naval Nuclear Power program used large funding and was successful at
launching a submarine in about 6 years from start to finish.
The Apollo Program was another large budget success in short order.
I would guess many large projects supported by the Chinese Govt. have been
successful as well.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT IS THE KEY IMHO.
Bob Cook
From: Alain Sepeda
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 2:58 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: Re: [Vo]:"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
I agree with that analysis.
The problem of current science funding is not enough crazy.
another is too big, ad to much money wth a winner take all effect.
about subisides I find it is absurd t subsidize mass production.
you don't make clipper sail boats progress by subsidizing transatlantic
clippers.
you subsidize research, or an america's cup, to push new innovations, but you
don't dump money in huge volume just hoping some of the cash will be used to
improve the efficiency and not mostly to pay bonus.
we need crazy research to be fuded more, and what works well to be funded by
market.
you are right thet the problem of modern science is too much democracy, too
much control, thus conformism, fashion, despair to succeed.
in the old times, prince, kings, tycoons, where simply crasy funding hopeless
research that falled in functon despite all bets, and all current theories.
the problem is that modersn subisidies are just there to fund what private
sector would fund, because it is rational.
fundig a blackswan is by definition funding something that will fail most of
the time.
On the opposite the funding scheme based on conformism is not only killing
creativuty, but it is killing the "good greed" that make people fund what will
make a revolution.
not only we fund things that will work, but if some anomaly is found , it is
rejected as it endanger an ecosystem of parasites who self congratulate, share
the same subsidies, create a predictable knowledge system where ex-post success
depend on ex-ante consensus and not on ex-post results.
in a consensus research, there is much less risk. that is the key of that
system.
and dissidents create a risk and have to be suppressed.
2015-06-20 0:14 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>:
Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote:
The problem is all those analysis about why it went wrong and that big
money was misused.
The government is providing grants as they see fit.
The government means a bunch of bureaucrats. They cannot spell risk.
Therefore we will end up with more rules and restrictions and rules, which
are supposed to sort out what is good research and what is bad ditto.
In the past, the government provided grant money more freely, without strings
attached. For example, the Navy gave a grant to Townes, which he used to
develop the maser and the laser. These things had no technical or commercial
use at first.
No doubt some money is misused, but I think the bigger problem is
micro-management by people in Washington. And this problem, in turn, is caused
by society-wide distrust of science. It is caused by the kinds of people who
assume that scientists are lying about global warming, or that scientists live
high off the hog and enjoy lavish salaries and they do not work hard.
The policy makers who put in place all these rules are not trying to rule
over scientists. They are not doing it to exercise power. They are doing it
because the Congress demands "accountability." The bureaucrats and the Congress
do this because they are afraid of the public. The policy makers are afraid to
take risks because they will be fired if they make a mistake and support some
young scientist who makes a big mistake. No one fires you for supporting "me
too" research that breaks no new ground and contributes nothing to progress, as
long as it get the right answer -- and the expected answer.
Another expression of this problem is that a disproportionate share of the
money goes to senior scientists instead of young ones. Young people are the
ones who have new ideas. They are main source of progress.
We cannot have things both ways. To encourage creativity we need fewer
restrictions, which means less accountability, and more examples of money
wasted.
It is a mystery to me that it is not obvious, that with the fantastic
ability to organize and access data we have in the western world we should
utilize that strengths.
Instead we are sending all resources to large organizations with no
accountability.
On the contrary they have too much accountability. Not enough academic
freedom.
In any case, it is the taxpayer's money. It has to be spent by the rules set
by the Congress, in government laboratories.
Widespread, unfounded distrust of government is a major problem in science,
and also in technology. For example, the DoE Loan Programs Office was raked
over the coals for losses by Solyndra Corp. What has been overlooked in this
so-called scandal is the fact that overall the Office has loaned $30 billion
and not only has it made a very good profit, it has produced a huge improvement
in conventional energy systems ranging from nuclear fission to wind energy:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/06/peter_davidson_steps_down_from_energy_department_his_loan_program_was_responsible.html
This is exactly what the government should be doing. This is what it has done
successfully since the 18th century in support of virtually every major
technology, from canals to telegraphs, railroads, aviation, to the Internet.
The government has always played an essential role in technology, which must
continue.
Government has also been nearly the only source of funding for cold fusion
since 1989. Fleischmann, Pons, Miles, McKubre and nearly all others were funded
by the British and U.S. governments, mainly from DARPA and other military
sources. Capitalist industry has contributed nothing, so far. We will need
industry to make cold fusion a reality, but as usually happens, industry will
come in after the discovery is made practical. The government and the public
will pay for the development, and take the risks, while industry stands aside
and later comes in to reap the profits. That is what happened with most
previous technology such as computers and the Internet.
- Jed
