From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Supercollider "For" or "Against"
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:09:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

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:
>
>|>  Engineering project?   Or why not distribute the money to US engineering
>|>  companies such as Boeing, Ford, Motorola, (ahem) Hewlett Packard, etc
>|>  with the proviso that it be spent on corporate R&D?   I'm not actually
>|>  advocating, this, just suggesting that we could spend the money in 
>|>  ways that would be more likley to to ensure US technological leadership
>|>  and jobs in the years to come.  
>
>As for just giving the money direct to industry, in a sense that is
>indeed what will happen, the money for the collider will end up buying
>high tech equipment, much of it requiring custom design. It is much more
>beneficial to pay for a specific piece of research that has a tangible,
>deliverable end product than to simply give the money away.

  Well, maybe this is an article of religious faith on my part,  but
  it seems to me that there's a difference between a Hewlett Packard
  or a GE, or a Ford, or an Eastman Kodak (or a Siemens, or a CIBA-
  Geigy, or a Hoffman LaRoche, to mention some European instances)
  having the money as part of their R&D budget, and having it as a
  contract for a government project.   In the former case the companies
  themselves will decide where and how to invest the money, presumably
  allowing market forces to inducate where the greatest need is.  I
  can't speak for other companies but here at HP we *really do* discuss
  and try to anticipate how we can use technology or develop new technoloy
  to meet people's actual needs; to help them do their work better and
  be more productive and all that other stuff that sounds like adver-
  tising hype.    
  
  
>|>  And if not then why spend the money at all?     Note
>|>  that some US companies such as Boeing with their development of their
>|>  777 or Motorola with their proposed satellite network are already
>|>  spending thousands of millions of dollars on daring, large-scale,
>|>  bleeding edge, high-complexity design and manufacturing projects.  
>
>And getting highly subsidised in the process. Boeing got the cash to
>build the 747 from the profits it made on planes for the military. The
>whole satelite program is a spin off from a project that originaly began
>with a need to save US face after Sputnik. 

  Ok, but even if this is true,  it is still Boeing that decides where
  and how to invest the money to meet market needs.  The 777 really 
  does fulfill important requirements for air transport during the 
  early 2000's.  And likewise the proposed Motorola satellit network 
  will revolutionize communications.    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.



>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.  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).


>|>  But private industry already does this.  Here at Hewlett Packard 
>|>  this sort of collaboration is a routine occurence, as I'm sure it 
>|>  is at most other multinational corporations.
>
>Private industry is driven by commercial pressures, when I worked in
>industry the standard payback time demanded was 6 months, projects
>taking two years required special sanctions, only exceptional areas
>could persue "long term" ten year projects.

 This must have been a US company  8-)   .   Anyway, plenty of
 Japanese companies have much longer horizons than that and even a 
 few US and European companies do.   It depends on their board of
 directors, how they're funded, etc.  To the extent that this is 
 a real problem, there have been several proposals to change the 
 capital gains tax law in the US to encourage long-term investment.


>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?


> Projects like the SSC cut across the market, they produce demands
> which otherwise would not exist. 

  Any large project cuts across many disciplines.  Automobile technology
  for instance, requires coordination and use of technology ranging 
  from materials science such as ceramics and metallurgy, chemistry, 
  electronics, process control, combustion engineering, human factors
  engineering, aerodymanics and manufacturing technology.   Aircraft
  design is even more demanding.   

  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?  


>|>  But again, I claim this happens on a huge scale, routinely in private
>|>  industry.
>
>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.   
  
> 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 just don't see that there's a need for expensive high energy
  or particle physics research.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc