SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For more than a half century, it has been an article of faith that science would not get funded if government did not do it, and economic growth would not happen if science did not get funded by the taxpayer. Now Matt Ridley writes in The Wall Street Journal that when you examine the history of innovation, you find, again and again, that scientific breakthroughs are the effect, not the cause, of technological change. "It is no accident that astronomy blossomed in the wake of the age of exploration," says Ridley. "The steam engine owed almost nothing to the science of thermodynamics, but the science of thermodynamics owed almost everything to the steam engine. The discovery of the structure of DNA depended heavily on X-ray crystallography of biological molecules, a technique developed in the wool industry to try to improve textiles." According to Ridley technological advances are driven by practical men who tinkered until they had better machines; abstract scientific rumination is the last thing they do.
It follows that there is less need for government to fund science: Industry will do this itself. Having made innovations, it will then pay for research into the principles behind them. Having invented the steam engine, it will pay for thermodynamics. After all, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the U.S. and Britain made huge contributions to science with negligible public funding, while Germany and France, with hefty public funding, achieved no greater results either in science or in economics. To most people, the argument for public funding of science rests on a list of the discoveries made with public funds, from the Internet (defense science in the U.S.) to the Higgs boson (particle physics at CERN in Switzerland). But that is highly misleading. Given that government has funded science munificently from its huge tax take, it would be odd if it had not found out something. This tells us nothing about what would have been discovered by alternative funding arrangements. "Governments cannot dictate either discovery or invention," concludes Ridley. "They can only make sure that they don't hinder it. Innovation emerges unbidden from the way that human beings freely interact if allowed. Deep scientific insights are the fruits that fall from the tree of technological change."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Saturday October 31 2015, @01:48AM
I think the article is a payed-for agenda that has little to do with the real world. The message seems to be that commercialism is the better way to go.
Actually, I think it merely strikes a balance, countering the "government must do it all" philosophy that the world has swung to.
The truth probably lies somewhere in between. The bulk of everyday objects and systems were not the result of any direct government research. Yet current thinking immediately suggests a government project is needed to get anything done.
Would we all be talking on computers over the internet were it not for DARPA? Yes we would. Xerox PARC had already invented ethernet, machines were already being linked together by other systems that fell by the wayside when tcp/ip came along. No ONE invention lead to the internet we have today. We built the internet, one expensive dial-up connection at a time. We funded telcos to quintuple the size of the telephone system over 6 or 8 years.
Even here on SN the thinking is schizophrenic - constantly tearing down every aspect of government as corrupt and serving the 1%, yet demanding more government and more government research into everything.
The article is a sorely needed point of balance. The worst thing the government ever invented and brought into being was the nintynine percenters, who believe they can't do anything without the government.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 31 2015, @11:36AM
What the hell world are you living in? Certainly not the one I seem to be inhabiting.
Historically that has been the case for blue-sky research. But governments (beholden to their corporate masters) seem increasingly trying to focus state resources on "useful" (read: foreseeably profitable) research - which is exactly the kind of research corporations tend do without government aid. But corporations are rarely wont to turn down government subsidies when they can get them.
An online community consists of many people with diverse viewpoints? Unacceptable! Something must be done!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 31 2015, @05:12PM
What did that poor strawman ever do to you?