Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Dutchy wrote:But we forget that it is state investment that makes innovation possible in the first place
tommy1808 wrote:Dutchy wrote:But we forget that it is state investment that makes innovation possible in the first place
Without governments doing that, just few items of technology would be available today. Basic research is not done by companies pretty much ever. And few companies could afford it even if they wanted to.
The only real question is: how far do you take those basics? Helping companies to commercialize science is the often the only way to get a RoI on their research investment.
best regards
Thomas
Dutchy wrote:Basic = fundamental research you mean? I would say, money isn't the problem, but the problem with fundamental research is that the outcome is very unsure, so what business-case are you going to sell to your board and shareholders? Look at Apple, they have a sea of money which they don't know what to do with, yet they don't go into fundamental research.
tommy1808 wrote:Without governments doing that, just few items of technology would be available today. Basic research is not done by companies pretty much ever. And few companies could afford it even if they wanted to.
DfwRevolution wrote:tommy1808 wrote:Without governments doing that, just few items of technology would be available today. Basic research is not done by companies pretty much ever. And few companies could afford it even if they wanted to.
That is a totally, utterly, and completely baseless claim. Four Pinocchios. Dead wrong. Pants on fire.
Dutchy wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:tommy1808 wrote:Without governments doing that, just few items of technology would be available today. Basic research is not done by companies pretty much ever. And few companies could afford it even if they wanted to.
That is a totally, utterly, and completely baseless claim. Four Pinocchios. Dead wrong. Pants on fire.
Why do you say that? Could you name a private firm which has done fundamental research recently? I would be interested in a few examples.
DfwRevolution wrote:In my own line of work in the oil & gas sector, we typically spend about 20% of our R&D budget on pure science projects not tied to any specific product line or client need. We commit to advancing the state-of-the-art or else those opportunities won't become apparent. We specifically invest in materials science, fluid dynamics, and vibration via our own laboratories, private consortiums, and by sponsoring university projects.
As to whether the government should or should not be involved in research, that's a question that should be left to the people charting the government. In the United States, sponsoring scientific research wasn't an enumerated power we gave to the federal government. I'd prefer if the U.S. federal government stuck to it's chartered scope and left scientific endeavors to state governments.
Dutchy wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:tommy1808 wrote:Without governments doing that, just few items of technology would be available today. Basic research is not done by companies pretty much ever. And few companies could afford it even if they wanted to.
That is a totally, utterly, and completely baseless claim. Four Pinocchios. Dead wrong. Pants on fire.
Why do you say that? Could you name a private firm which has done fundamental research recently? I would be interested in a few examples.
Dutchy wrote:esearch you mean? I would say, money isn't the problem, but the problem with fundamental research is that the outcome is very unsure, so what business-case are you going to sell to your board and shareholders? Look at Apple, they have a sea of money which they don't know what to do with, yet they don't go into fundamental research.
BobPatterson wrote:Abandoning research to the states and/or industry groups would be even more of a disaster than the lax system we have now.
I am particularly concerned about the energy industry and its contribution to the chemical assault on our planet. We need much more, not less, research into new chemical formulations and byproducts of older and current processes.
We have never had an adequate program to test new chemicals prior to their use in products and release into the environment. Such a program is desperately needed and can only be managed at the national and even supranational levels.
We also desperately need a real research program to establish the costs and methods for recycling products and manufacturing/refining wastes and for ensuring that those ultimate disposal costs are built in to the products at the time they are manufactured.
The threat to the planet and its biota, including us and human health, is as great from chemical pollution as it is from global warming and climate change.
It’s been a bad summer for maintenance, especially in New York. Last month Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared a state of emergency for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, underscoring a problem that New York subway riders understand all too well: The M.T.A. relies heavily on emergency repairs because it does not conduct sufficient preventive upkeep. Likewise, in the wake of two recent derailments that caused major disruptions, Pennsylvania Station this month closed aging tracks for repairs and reduced the number of trains serving the station — another example of the costs of neglecting maintenance.
Sadly, the neglect of maintenance is not limited to New York, public transit or this summer. All varieties of American infrastructure — roads, bridges, airports, sewers — are in decrepit condition. Lead poisons the water systems of Flint, Mich., and hundreds of other cities and towns across the nation. The American Society of Civil Engineers considers 17 percent of American dams to be “high hazard potential,” including the one outside Oroville, Calif., that nearly collapsed in February.
Ken777 wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/opin ... eft-region
Strongly recommended. Makes me think that we need to allocate a percentage of the funds for new infrastructure projects to maintenance of OLD infrastructure projects.
BobPatterson wrote:I don't suppose Mr. Musk is contemplating the use of submarines in his tunnels, although rising sea level will eventually flood them.
Ken777 wrote:like the first mobile 64 bit processor, The new iPhones have a dual core processor - a smaller one for minor processing and a more powerful one for when a heavier load is encountered. .
Tugger wrote:BobPatterson wrote:I don't suppose Mr. Musk is contemplating the use of submarines in his tunnels, although rising sea level will eventually flood them.
Almost all of the tunnels in NYC are below the water table and so are already constantly being pumped out or they would become unusable in less than a week.
temperance wrote:My earlier this year urgent essay writing service was helping me with a paper on pilicies of foreign governments. And I must say not too many of them are willing to take such risk. So I think it's a good idea and very modernized in a way. Look where China and the US got
Channex757 wrote:Most fundamental research (real down to brass tacks stuff) is generally done in the education system anyway. Universities get State funding as well as private sector grants and Foundation funding.
They do the experimental stuff, which gets pushed out to industry to see if it can be commercialised. It is hugely more complex than just that, but that's generally how it happens. There are levels of research facilities that do the work, but the real fundamentals tend to be attached to some seat of learning and their research programs.