Bell Labs and the future of technology
This article examines what's going on at Bell Labs today and what it means for the future of technology in general.
In decades past, Bell Labs was famous for doing "blue sky" research that eventually led to, among other things, the transistor and the UNIX operating system. Lately, Bell Labs has been doing what some people would call "applied" computer science research into things like voice recognition, data mining, and wireless security.
"The real problem," Stokes declares, "is that what AT&T is doing today is not your grandfather's R&D, and neither is the work coming out of Google's labs, or Microsoft's, or the labs of any of the other information economy wunderkinds...
I think it's clear that chaotic, market-driven change is a good way to bring ideas quickly and efficiently from concept to profitable product. However, such a rapid churning of the institutional and cultural landscape ultimately may not be conducive to the kind of steady, expensive, long-term investment in fundamental research that produces the really big ideas that somewhere, at some completely unforeseeable point in the future, change the world."
Hmm. I guess Stokes is arguing that we should be putting more money into "fundamental" research... things like pure biology, pure math, and pure physics. Despite the fact that I'm not a "pure" or "theoretical" anything, I think I agree with that. I'm not sure I really agree with his reasons, though. Does fundamental research really give a competitive advantage to the country that does it?
Will knowing the mass of the top quark keep our economy afloat for decades to come? Especially if the mass is revealed in a internationally published scientific journal?
As with all things economic, the question is very hard to answer. One good thing about funding research is that it brings smart people to your country. If they stay, some of them may go into private industry or have kids that do. (Oftentimes, parents pass on their excitement about science and technology to their kids.) This could be helpful.
Overall, though, I don't think fundamental research always gives an economic advantage to the country doing the research. The idea of "scientific capital" is an oversimplification.
I think people should be doing pure research just for the sake of knowledge, rather than because they want to get a competitive advantage. There's nothing wrong with trying to get a competitive advantage, but it's better to leave that to more nimble and agile private corporations.
posted by RareCactus @ 11:49 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Will knowing the mass of the top quark keep our economy afloat for decades to come?
Although this qualifies as pure research, to me it doesn't seem like fundamental research. A question like how do we reconcile the inconsistencies between relativity and quantum physics, for example, seems like a much more fundamental question. And one whose asnwer could in the long term have practical consequences. I do however, think it is a huge waste of resrouces to build enormous supercolliders, given how many other very important fundamental questions you could tackle for the same cost.
Also, bringing top people into your country (and retaining those you already have) has a lot of practical consequences. It draws more smart people in, it makes it easier to train people to be smart. IMO, in order to teach a subject correctly the person teaching should have a deeper understanding than the target understanding of the learner.
Finally, you take everything from a country comparison position. If a scientist develops something that helps people in our country a lot and helps people in other countries a lot, this is still a big win -- It isn't a zero sum game.
- Hambalba
Hmm... I don't know much about nuclear physics, but the impression I got from talking to some people is that these huge supercolliders and other facilities are necessary to solve the fundamental questions that you are referring to. We've come a long way since the days when you could fool around with a cathode ray tube and a piece of tinfoil, and write a paper about it. In a way, it's a shame, because it forces research to be more centrally organized and hierarchical (not just anyone can get time at FermiLab!)
I agree that bringing in smart people is important. Luckily, the U.S. is still an attractive destination for technology and science-oriented folks from around the world. At the company where I work, we have a bunch of people from India, Turkey, and even a couple from east asia. Every so often, some of them choose to return home, though.
Hmm... I don't know much about nuclear physics, but the impression I got from talking to some people is that these huge supercolliders and other facilities are necessary to solve the fundamental questions that you are referring to. We've come a long way since the days when you could fool around with a cathode ray tube and a piece of tinfoil, and write a paper about it. In a way, it's a shame, because it forces research to be more centrally organized and hierarchical (not just anyone can get time at FermiLab!)
Firstly, there's lots of fairly fundamental research that can be done in physics which has nothing to nuclear physics. And a lot of this stuff is far cheaper to fund. Secondly, my understanding is that based on current techniques, there is no way to test certain theoreies, etc, within particle physics without spending a lot of money. This means to me that throwing money at the problem is a really bad idea -- redistributing money to a lot of smaller projects will force that sort of creative in ways to experiment, measure, etc., that most big scientific discoveries have come from.
In general, I think physics funding by how neato a project would be, rather than trying to fund lot's of inexpensive but potentially fundamental projects. Let's call this the NASA effect. Friction is a lot less sexy to study than quasars, but it's cheaper to fund and at least as worthwhile to understand.
- Ham
Post a Comment
<< Home