From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Supercollider "For" or "Against"
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:27:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Jul30.005130.12827@dscomsf.desy.de> Poser@vxdsyc.desy.de writes:
>In article <Bs61Lt.Ft5@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>Would You be so kind as to remember a NASA press conference in the beginning
>of the eighties, where they stated unabiguously that "NASA would not be able
>to put a man on the Moon within ten Years, regardless the effort". What had
>happened? They lost the technologogy to do that. The threw away the records.

 But that was their choice.  I'm saying records CAN be kept.


>|>   I'm not suggesting basic science be totally eliminated.   If the
>|>   world had half as many high energy physicists, astronomers, etc
>|>   as it has today, and the total money spent in these fields were
>|>   half what it is today, we wouldn't return to a Dark Ages of
>|>   science; things would just happen a lot slower and on a smaller
>|>   scale than now.  
>
>The real question is, how does the slower and smaller scientific progress
>of a nation influence it's competetiveness? A scientific establishment
>is not a luxury (the extent of it might be subject to discussion). Another
>question to be asked: scientific breaktroughs in abstract research are
>unpredictable. On the whole, however, a greater investment, however one
>wants to quantify it, has a good chance of yielding a greater return.
>What is the extent of abstract research that allows a nation to stay in
>the game?

  This is a complex question.   Japan did very well in the last few
  decades using mainly *applied* science, rather than basic science.
  England on the other hand has always been strong in basic science
  but has had great difficulty translating that into commercial
  success.    

  Just because you can't predict where breakthroughs will occur 
  doesn't mean you can't make some effort to focus your research.
  Private industry does basic research all the time; they just
  concentrate in areas where they think they'll be a payoff.
  I'm just suggesting that $8 billion spent on a supercollider
  HEP might be better spent by private industry on research
  focussed on their needs.


>|>>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.
>|>
>|>  And the market responded to this by clobbering the big 3's market share
>|>  and opening the doors to more reliable, quality-conscious imports!  
>|>  I think this is a good example of how the market ensures that 
>|>  private companies keep their customer's needs in mind.   
>
>This is disingenuous. This is true only for a variegated market, and there
>are some technologies, which are in the hands of de facto monopolies or 
>cartels. The market has little concerns with a possible future need, it
>satisfies the consumer now, or within the scope of the next couple of 
>months. Companies have been known to slash and abandon non-imminently
>marketable research in the face of coorporate hardships.

  Sure, they do this all the time.  And governments cut projects when 
  they come under pressure for fiscal responsibility (which is not
  often enough, but I can still cite plenty of examples).  Research
  costs money and choices have to be made.   But if a company cuts
  important or vital research then they end up suffereing the con-
  sequences because sooner or later their competitors will do the 
  reseaerch, make the discoveries, and reap the rewards. (consider the 
  curent debate over patenting human genes)  The point is that even
  in this recession there is plenty of corporate R&D going on.


>The question is, whether the market, and market forces, allow for abstract
>research, and allow for it beyond the scope of the quarterly report.

  It depends on how you define "abstract".  If you mean not related to a 
  current product line or product plan, then I can state confidently
  that this certainly happens here at HP, and I'm sure it does at other
  large technology related companies. 


---peter






Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:34886 alt.politics.elections:8679 alt.politics.perot:965