From: degroff@.IntelliCorp.COM (Les Degroff)
Subject: Re: Disincentives
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 19:25:52 GMT

In article <g57ViB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
|> The more I get involved with legislative reforms of the space
|> program and fusion energy, the more it appears that the 
|> incentives of these programs are deliberately designed
|> to suppress progress.
|>  
|> For example, everyone receiving money directly or indirectly
|> from these projects knows that if they actually do open
|> up access to space or actually do solve the fusion problem,
|> their personal positions will disappear and they will receive
|> no royalties from the technologies they develop at government
|> expense.
|>  
|> And guess what?  They all behave exactly as though they were
|> aware of that fact!  
|>  
|> They stretch out each little technical innovation for as long
|> as possible extracting as much money as possible from Congress
|> while providing minimal returns and engaging in character
|> assassination of any "outsiders" who come up with innovations
|> that might work quickly and cheaply.
|>  
|> Now given the potential importance of fusion and space, it
|> leads me to wonder, why is it that we have set the incentives
|> of these programs up to produce suppression of progress in
|> these areas?
|>  
|> Is it just stupid, short-sighted porkbarrel politics?
|>  
|> 
|> --                    
|> INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
|> UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
|> NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
   Lack of significant "panic" success or we find somebody else attention
is a  important as "pork" politics.  Besides if your description is 
valid (which I believe is a good observation of the facts) this 
behavior is rational (not stupid)  and long sighted (not short sighted)
from the organizations and many individuals points of view!!!  
   A second factor beyond, "short sight" and a driver but not actually
part of the "pork politics" process is that most researchers have 
agenda's of their own and while congress is pursuaded by some combination
of "jobs and money in my turf" and national policy, in the labs its 
a jungle of "do my experiment...work with me" competition where the higher
goals of making a working power system or economic space transport
are lost far above. The problems of Ivory tower abound, and even there
are the problems of insufficient resources.
   As the scale of effort gets large, this just gets worse because it
is at root (zero sum) (losers are out) kind of thing. 
   The one good side (so far (whats the smilie for a grimace of pain :.|))
   is that by continuing to have research we maintain the potential to
    a. understand what our international competitors achieve,if and when they
    pull way ahead. (remember how much enhancement, American chemical
    companies got when  we "nationalized" Patents held by Germans in WWII.
    b. we have a base to start with if it becomes "Manhatten project" time...
   panic/ do or die mode again.
    ( My one hope for Moon and Mars expeditions in my natural life time has
 faded with the collapse of the Soviet Union, I was giving better than 
50/50 odds that the Soviets would expand Mir, then place a small Lunar
colony triggering another Panic space race. Les
   On unfeasible solution (just as is being proposed for politicians) is
to always be forcing new blood into the system by limiting the terms 
of senior researchers and project leaders...(do it in 8 years or get off
the pot and let someone else try :))  The main (nearly impossible) trick
is to set primary focus on "engineering" goals  and put science in
second fiddle. 
 There is some pretty good 
evidence esp. for physics and maths that primary "great work" is
done before 30 although tempered by the fact that there is large value in
being mentored, guided and shielded by older scientists.