
Reviving Patronage and Revolutionary Industrial Research - apsec112
https://guzey.com/patronage-and-research-labs/
======
taliesinb
I couldn’t agree more with this article.

I happen to be working on a new way to look at quantum mechanics, based on
finite combinatorial objects called multi-way systems, and after just a few
weeks I’ve made a very satisfying amount of progress.

Maybe it won’t go anywhere. But if it succeeds, it should generate the
abstract algebraic structure of QM — complex Hilbert spaces — from a more
elegant, intuitive, general, and natural set of axioms. If it succeeds, it
will probably be how we teach quantum mechanics in 50 years. And I’ll have to
write the textbook! As a side bonus, it could also reveal quantum mechanical
behavior in a much wider set of systems in the natural sciences, unconnected
with physics.

Sure, saying all these things out aloud sounds super grandiose and silly. But
I wouldn’t be doing this if I didn’t think it could work. _Obviously_ it’s
super risky, but that’s the only reason I’m actually interested in trying it —
the high stakes are what get me up every day, obsessing about it, talking
about it, reading endlessly, trying different permutations of ideas, etc.

Now, I’m self funded. I would struggle to imagine someone who would fund me to
do this. Or an institution or adviser that would regard it as a suitable topic
for a PhD. How on earth could something so ambitious possibly work? Who the
hell do I think I am? etc.

But we need hundreds of people doing this — one of them will probably succeed,
and it will change the world!

------
btrettel
Interesting essay. I read it months ago and am just going off my memory here.

My main problem with patronage is that those who would succeed under it would
tend to do "sexier" research and also be better at sales. My own research
(turbulent sprays at present) is decidedly not sexy and I can't say I'm
particularly good at sales. The status-quo (grants mostly from the government)
does have the same problems to a certain extent, but I believe these problems
would be amplified under patronage because non-technical folks (who are
providing the funding) may not understand the technical justifications for
certain lines of research. At least under the status quo grant proposals are
reviewed by people who are _nominally_ familiar with the subject of the
proposal, though perhaps less so than they should be, and they are under time
pressure as well.

This Norbert Wiener book goes into detail about the problem of those with
funding knowing less than those who need funding:
[https://www.worldcat.org/title/invention-the-care-and-
feedin...](https://www.worldcat.org/title/invention-the-care-and-feeding-of-
ideas/oclc/840260029)

For this reason I don't think patronage can be more than a _part_ of a
proposed new "research enterprise". I'd be happy to see movement in that
direction, still.

(And if anyone wants to fund theoretical work in sprays, feel free to contact
me! See my profile for a link to my contact information. :-)

------
lambdatronics
I like this, and I'm going to write a rebuttal eventually. The gist is that
the bigger a risk is, the more important it is to socialize it. Doing amazing
things like solving fusion requires taking big risks. Instead of giving up on
collective funding of research, let's try to dream up a method to change the
incentive structure so we get the outcomes we want.

