1. clock
  2. Wealth of Science

Wealth of Science

By clock on July 23, 2006.

Phil Plait has an excellent post: Wealth of Science:

Then the author said something that literally startled me:

"Scientists, till recently at least, effectively donated the wealth they created."

He's absolutely right. Again, wealth is not the same as money. Scientists take a relatively small amount of money (compared to, say, the cost of an attack helicopter or the building of a bridge) and turn it into wealth. Knowledge. Understanding. A brief moment of awe in the public when they grasp a little bit more of the Universe.

Tags
Academia

More like this

At Least He's Honest?
The topic sucking up all blogospheric oxygen at the moment is the great elevator incident. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you can find lots of good summaries and explanations, including from Phil Plait and Josh Rosenau. The core of the story is that Rebecca Watson was propositioned in an…
Cosmic Awe
“...the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.” -Carl Sagan As many of you know, I'm fortunate enough to live in a city that values science and scientific knowledge so highly that…
The Danger When You Don't Know What You Don't Know
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. There's no shortage of stupidity in the world. And, alas, it comes in many, many different kinds. Among the ones that bug me, pretty much the worst is the stupidity that comes from believing that you know something that you don't. This is…
Nonsense Pretending: Probability as a Disguise
Once again, you, my readers, have come through with some really high-grade crackpottery. This one was actually sent to me by its author, but I didn't really look at it until several readers sent me the same link because they thought it was my kind of material. With your recommendations, I took a…

This excerpt from Marvin Minsky [being interviewed on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of AI] captures both the trend in "privitization of intellectual property" and the resulting dry spell in Minsky's particular branch of science:

In the early days, DARPA supported people rather than proposals. There was a lot of progress from starting in 1963; for about ten years the kinds of things I am talking about did flourish. And then in the early 1970s there was a kind of funny accident. Senator Mike Mansfield, quite a liberal, decided that the Department of Defense shouldn't be supporting civilian research. So he was responsible for ARPA becoming DARPA, and straining not to compete with industrial and civilian research. So it became much harder for them to support visionary researchers.

At the same time, the American corporate research community started to disappear in the early 1970s. Bell Labs and RCA and the others essentially disappeared from this sort of activity. And another thing happened: the entrepreneur bug hit. By the 1980s, many people were starting to try to patent things and start startups and make products, and that coincided with the general disappearance of young scientists. People who could have become productive scientists are now going into law and business.