Comment by fidotron
10 hours ago
There's something odd in this argument. If you come at it from a Canadian perspective Canada seriously spent on neural network computer science when almost no one else did (many in AI considered the entire thing discredited and impossible), now the (financial) gains from that are almost entirely in a foreign country.
The US science establishment was all about buying and utilizing Russian rocket engines until he-that-shall-not-be-named came along. SpaceX took the breakthroughs that existed in the US in things like control theory, which the same science establishment had failed to value appropriately.
It doesn't look like the science establishments of any country are actually successfully feeding their innovation machines, or have done so for decades. Switching a non functioning system off does at least allow it to be replaced by something that risks doing things when something comes back.
Of course many pure scientists will, legitimately, argue that innovation isn't the point in the first place, and that is a far more solid point, but real academic diversity has been so destroyed by the global consensus making peer review process that much of their progress has effectively stalled.
Because talent and ideas move so easily between the US and Canada, any useful basic science that Canada comes up with will ultimately be monetized in the country with 10x the population, 15x the GDP, and 100x the stock market and VC funding depth.
This could start to change if present US hostility towards all things foreign results in a shift in investment and migration.
I’m blind, and participate in a lot of research projects to create accessible technology, which are mostly done by universities. What I have noticed as a foreigner participating with US based universities is that, a lot of this research while very high-quality and very well done does not actually result in anything that the intended audience gets to use or experience. And a lot of this is due to the amount of red tape, as well as a lack of risk taking. This means that without trying to go commercial a lot of these projects end up shelved and many potential users simply never see the benefits.
Research is necessary but not sufficient. Also need access to capital (and eventually capital markets) and a sufficiently sophisticated legal framework/safety framework so you can enforce contracts at least most the time. Good research is just a vehicle for producing knowledge and talent.
Not only did SpaceX make breakthroughs considered impossible by the "experts" in the industry, they did it by hiring a guy who literally built rocket engines in his garage to design the engines. The key here is personality. And the type of person who actually wants to build things and get things done absolutely recoils at bureaucracy and the type of people who like it.
When you build something to the point where there is a bureaucratic "establishment" in control you can be sure that innovation slows to a crawl. You may still have a few individual scientists doing great work, but you can be sure that some miserable bureaucrat will pat him on the back and stick it in a drawer somewhere never to see the light of day again. The same is true whether that bureaucratic establishment is at a government or in universities, or any other type of bureaucratic organization.
"Building things" is not science, it's engineering. We could certainly compare the outcomes of "bureaucratic" science against the free market variety, but there's basically no free market science going on to support such a comparison.
This isn't a value judgement. Engineering is just as important as science, but just as more science is not a replacement for engineering, neither does better engineering free us from the need to keep pursuing science. And at the end of the day, SpaceX might be an impressive engineering company, but we still need the scientists. And it's weird how often the success of SpaceX is brought up as an implicit argument that we can send all the scientists to work on farms or whatever without any ill effects.
It also seems notable that a company like SpaceX is an obvious candidate to bring back the 20th century style corporate funded scientific research organizations to underpin their engineering efforts in a way that would presumably be free of the hated "bureaucracy". But if they've done so, I haven't heard about it.
> The US science establishment was all about buying and utilizing Russian rocket engines until he-that-shall-not-be-named came along. SpaceX took the breakthroughs that existed in the US in things like control theory, which the same science establishment had failed to value appropriately.
I feel like you're confusing "science" and "engineering". SpaceX is fundamentally an engineering company, not a scientific one. Don't get me wrong, they've done impressive work in engineering innovation, but that's fundamentally different from scientific research. And as the article points out, engineering innovation from the likes of SpaceX is usually reliant on that foundational scientific innovation, which in turn is essentially useless without an engineering partner to realize scientific discoveries.
> It doesn't look like the science establishments of any country are actually successfully feeding their innovation machines, or have done so for decades.
Really? Is it just a coincidence that up until recently the US had some of the most robust scientific funding and was an unbeatable source of engineering innovation? For that matter, are there any real counterexamples where science research is non-existent but engineering excellence abounds?
How's China doing? They seem to have a lot of research going on that feeds into their manufacturing fairly quickly from the papers I hear about
Notably China is a big country and Canada is a small country. If there is some innovation that is going to improve productivity globally by %X the amount of benefit that goes to China is always going to be bigger than the benefit that goes to Canada.
China are certainly better at turning the results of research into products, whether that research was them or anyone else.
The canonical example here is 5G. Once again the US science establishment had the guy, he ends up doing the breakthroughs for polar coding, they failed to appreciate him, he left and ended up being funded by Huawei.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdal_Ar%C4%B1kan
The US science establishment isn't broken as an innovation engine because of Trump - it's because they're clearly rewarding the wrong things.
What isn't so clear is if Chinese science is creating Chinese startups. It may yet happen.
Eh, China is better at directing massive state level resources at incrementally improving technology. Nothing truly revolutionary has come out of China. The West is still ahead in that sort of stuff.
"real academic diversity" is doing all your lifting here
There’s not enough information to determine what the phrase is supposed to mean in context.
They seem to be opposed to peer review?