From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Supercollider "For" or "Against"
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:51:50 GMT

In article <Bs5J72.6t3@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
Nelson) writes:
|>In article <1992Jul28.233106.2299@dscomsf.desy.de>
|>hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
|>>In article <Bs43Ao.EB0@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
|>>Nelson) writes:

|>  As I said earlier, I'm not
|>  opposing government R&D assistance, per se, I'm just suggeting that
|>  the market is better at allocating it to meet real needs than the 
|>  government functionaries, politicians, or ivory-tower scientists.

In the short term, no question. However in the long and medium term
there is a case for government supported research to compliment
Industrial research.

|>>One reason why I see the SSC as necessary is in the context of gradually
|>>scaling down the arms race there is an urgent need to keep the expertise
|>>and technological base that it created. Military spending tends to be
|>>much less good at producing spinoffs in general since the need for
|>>secrecy compartmentalises expertise. After the cold war is over we need
|>>to rescue as much of that expertise as possible lest it be lost.
|>
|>  Again, I don't understand:  if that expertise is genuinely valuable
|>  to meet people's needs then it won't be lost, it will be used by
|>  private companies to develop new products. 

Problem is that the immediate usefulness of a technology is not always
apparent. Also a technology that is only marginaly useful now may prove
to be critical much later.

|> Satellite communications, 
|>  jet engines, radar, certain IC technology and *many* other things are
|>  all instances of technology that was successfully transitioned into
|>  private hands because it met a need.    If that expertise is NOT 
|>  useful to the general market then who cares if it's "lost" (it won't
|>  be completely lost, I assume records will be kept).

Records are not much good as a means of preserving technology. Too much
of the actual expertise tends to reside in the culture that supports the
technology. Reports tend to be written for an audience, few technical
reports bluntly say "this project we spent 1 million on was a complete
failure", without the expertise to read the reports much of the
information is lost.

|>>The research was entirely driven by the market. Because all the firms
|>>exist in the same market, inovation tends to proceed along much the
|>>same lines in each.
|>
|>  I don't understand this.  Do HP and Boeing and Ford and Glaxo all
|>  serve the same market?

Nope, but HP, DEC, Tectronics, Sun et al do, Boeing and Airbus do,
Glaxo, ICI, Welcome do. If you consider the individual operating
divisions of those companies the correspondances becomes even more
direct.

|>  Also, I don't understand what you mean by "produce demands".  There
|>  are plenty of good demands out there.  How about a cure for cancer
|>  if you want a high-tech, Big Science project?  

That type of research is not limited by resources other than cost, there
is no way to retrain High energy Physicists and hope to end up with a
cure for cancer. Resources don't comute in the same way that money
does.

If you want a more direct application for HEP research, our civilisation
is criticaly dependent on energy supply. So far we have not found a
satisfactory energy source. One of the possible candidates for a
solution is fussion, HEP type research provides basic theoretical
knowlege to ground more direct research. The more direct route is tried
as well of course, but just building totemaks isn't a solution, we need
a much broader approach that that.

|>>Viewing public and private research as equivalent is not really
|>>justified. They both serve different but complimentary needs. Private
|>>research will always exceed public research. However private research is
|>>focused on producing private gain.
|>
|>  But you can only do so by meeting a public need.  Granted, NEC made
|>  its latest CDROM drives, HP developed its Scanjet, Intel its clock-
|>  doubled CPU's and MediaVision its latest sound card for private gain
|>  and profit.   But they also meet *my* needs which is why I expect to
|>  buy them in the next 6 months.   

But there is also the counter example of industries which deliberately
refused to persue research. GM and Ford used to be pleased as punch that
rust rendered a replacement for their products necessary after a few
years. Built-in obselesence was the name of the game.

|>> The smart way to use public research is to refocus the private research
|>> in such a way that it produces public gains.
|>
|>  I would change this to "public NEEDS".  I will grant that the market 
|>  doesn't meet all possible needs.  For instance, there are millions
|>  of unemployed people who have a demonstrable need for a job which
|>  will allow them to support their families above a state of poverty.
|>  There are people who cannot get medical treatment without public 
|>  money because the market does not meet the need for access to 
|>  medical care if you have certain pre-existing conditions.  Etc.

I agree with this up to a point. However the resources are not
necessarily transferable. Many other countries have found ways of
solving these problems (or at least are coping with them better than the
US has). One thing is certain though, the solution is not to throw the
technological base away to persue these goals. Both goals have to be
persued. 

Phill Hallam-Baker