We are killing the golden goose
dunno if it is this plain.. the regulatory capture in the last 30 years is not null. Especially in very niche, very profitable sub-corners of big-S Science.
How the U.S. became a science superpower
11–20 of 529 posts
Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower
#12We are killing the golden goose
A reminder that in a democracy, it's probably best to make sure the gold is widely shared. Lest the poorly educated masses of people without access to the gold vote to kill the goose.
Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower
#13We are killing the golden goose
A reminder that in a democracy, it's probably best to make sure the gold is widely shared. Lest the poorly educated masses of people without access to the gold vote to kill the goose.
Impossible since that would mean extreme left wing radical socialism. And communism.
Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower
#14If you read nothing else in this excellent post, read the conclusion: > A key component of this U.S. research ecosystem was the genius of the indirect cost reimbursement system. Not only did the U.S. fund researchers in universities by paying the cost of their salaries, the U.S. gave universities money for the researchers facilities and administration. This was the secret sauce that allowed U.S. universities to build…
I don't know that I'd rely too heavily on midterms in 26. Gerrymandering and all that.
Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower
#15If you read nothing else in this excellent post, read the conclusion: > A key component of this U.S. research ecosystem was the genius of the indirect cost reimbursement system. Not only did the U.S. fund researchers in universities by paying the cost of their salaries, the U.S. gave universities money for the researchers facilities and administration. This was the secret sauce that allowed U.S. universities to build…
[flagged]
The GP post explicitly mentioned the growth of Chinese research capability that they directly saw. It's no secret that China has explicitly and deliberately invested in ramping up R&D.
Also, requiring absolute proof in a system as vast and complex as R&D at the scale of the US leads to complete paralysis. It's a bit like cutting off your fingers because you want to lose weight.
Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
A reminder that in a democracy, it's probably best to make sure the gold is widely shared. Lest the poorly educated masses of people without access to the gold vote to kill the goose.
Impossible since that would mean extreme left wing radical socialism. And communism.
Sigh.
Unfortunately, your implications are spot on.
We, the people, are our own worst enemies.
Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower
#17Being the sole western industrialized nation that hadn't just had most of their infrastructure bombed to rubble can't have hurt.
Absolutely, but what did that give the United States, a 10-year advantage?
Last time I checked, WWII ended 80 years ago.
Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
A reminder that in a democracy, it's probably best to make sure the gold is widely shared. Lest the poorly educated masses of people without access to the gold vote to kill the goose.
Impossible since that would mean extreme left wing radical socialism. And communism.
Really? Is that your honest take? It's either late stage unfettered capitalism, regulatory capture and oligarchy OR communism?
Edit: I forgot theocracy.
Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower
#19Worth reading in its entirety. The following four paragraphs, about post-WWII funding of science in Britain versus the US, are spot-on, in my view: > Britain’s focused, centralized model using government research labs was created in a struggle for short-term survival. They achieved brilliant breakthroughs but lacked the scale, integration and capital needed to dominate in the post-war world. > The U.S. built a decent…
It seems like for all the silliness and inefficiency that comes with a decentralized system ... the decentralized nature of US science research allowed for more "possibilities" and that paid off economically in spades.
Like speech, ideas require an open field with a lot of garbage to hit many home runs.
Re: How the U.S. became a science superpower
#20How? Money. There is one problem with the current US system: it overproduces talent. When the US system was growing rapidly, the people could build a long-term career in the US. But nothing can grow forever at an exponential pace. The US continues to pour plenty of money into STEM, but it can't keep up with the pace of grad student production. People are making smart, individual decisions to head overseas for work. P…
[deleted]