I’m not so sure it’s the funding agencies that are to blame. They are probably making the same decisions about their money as they did 100’s of years ago – risk vs. return based on incentives and constraints. But incentives and constraints surely have changed over the decades. Suppose you knew that you could discover the cure for cancer with research costing 10 billion dollars, and you have managed to convince your investors that you would likely succeed. Your business plan is to recover the costs by selling the cure for $5000 to each person with cancer making 5x profit. Would you get the investment? Probably not because there is precedence today of the government making whimsical laws that would not grant your patent, or confiscate your idea for the “public good”, or tax it into oblivion. They’d argue that $5000 is just too expensive for people with cancer and enact some “gouging” law, price cap, or fair drugs act. Voters would scream “profit” and “greed” mantras and demand that it be eminent domain. “Surely such a technology is just too valuable to be owned by anyone person or company.” And so the incentive is destroyed. FDA regulations create constraints that make it tiresome to even try, and patents in general are now under attack. As property rights diminish, so does innovation.
________________________________________ From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:08 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Shout-outs to SFI in Physics World Robert, On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Robert Holmes <rob...@holmesacosta.com> wrote: This month's Physics World has a couple of articles that reference SFI: • "In search of the black swans" (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/38468 ) discusses how the current publish-or-perish ethic suppresses truly innovative research and that it is places like SFI and the Perimeter Institute that will be the breeding ground of the "new Einsteins"; I could not agree more with the premise put forward by this paper. Especially this bit: "A key problem, suggests mathematical physicist Eric Weinstein of the Natron Group, a hedge fund in New York, is that it is too easy for scientists in the “establishment” of any field to cut down new ideas, and to do so without really putting anything at risk, thereby leading to a culture that is systematically biased toward caution. “High-risk science is much more associated with figures from the past,” he says. " • "The (unfortunate) complexity of the economy" (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/38469 - unfortunately only available online as a summary) demonstrates that the current financial crisis would never have happened if only we had listened to the recommendations of the econophysicists' 1987 SFI conference. I'm a bit more skeptical of the apparent premise of this second paper, i.e. that physicists and "complexity science", whatever that is, will come to the rescue of economists. [Apologies, Pamela. Even though I did read On the Edge of Chaos, I didn't buy into the premise then, either. Nice treatment of Santa Fe society, though. :-} ] However, since only a summary was presented here, I really cannot develop a more full opinion until I've seen the full paper. IMO, complex systems require complex simulations in which the system components are given robust, detailed designs, if system prediction is a desired result. On the other hand, if non-specific, vague generalizations about a complex system are all that is required, then lower resolution simulation solutions can often suffice. In either case, I've yet to see the case made that "Physics" adds anything to the mix, unless the problem domain is one which requires physics to describe the system being modeled. Like the sun, for example. A complex model of the sun relies heavily on the sciences of physics and thermodynamics to provide the basis for the model's simulation design. On the other hand, a model designed to simulate the spread of infectious diseases through large populations does not require physics to allow an effective design to be developed, even though this is clearly an example of a complex system. Unfortunately though, there has never been a shortage of people out there who seem to feel a compelling need to force-fit physics analogies onto such epidemiological system simulations. Robert P.S. Doug, I look forward to the results of your gradings. My pleasure, --Doug ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
