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
