
Technological evolution has a momentum of its own - anigbrowl
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-basic-science-1445613954
======
danielnaab
Calling it the "myth" of basic science is not instructive. Plus, the general
gist of this article isn't new. But nonetheless interesting and accurate in
many aspects.

But the old [BBC Connections](1) series brings home the inevitability of
technical and scientific progress in amazing ways, such as how the
introduction of the concept of bank credit led to refrigeration and the space
shuttle. One innovation does inevitably beget another. Very much worth
watching the whole series.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(TV_series)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_\(TV_series\))

------
mcnamaratw
The first half of this editorial doesn't really address basic science.

In the second half he does get to the premise in the title, and he gives it
some support ... but he has very few cards to play. Yes, sometimes scientists
get caught in an ivory bottle for too long. But sometimes practitioners play
"poke and hope" for too long.

~~~
_delirium
The article makes more sense (or at least it did to me) once you read the
byline: the author is a politician in the British Parliament, and this is more
of a budget-related op-ed than analytical or historical piece. He wants to
reduce UK science funding, and this is his defense of that position.

------
timtadh
While I do not agree with everything in this article, indeed some of its
claims are suspect, I think it raises important points. There is a dynamic
interplay between "science", the act of discovery, and "technology" putting
knowledge to work. In my own work, the desire to accomplish a task drives my
scientific work. All of my current work has a "natural application" in my
field but has lead me to interesting mathematical questions which have
potential applications elsewhere as well. Thus, the dynamic I have personally
observed: progress in one space enables progress in another.

Furthermore, without individuals who are largely interested in knowledge
discovery, I maintain that progress would be slower. Someone had to desire to
understand cells and know about x-ray crystallography in order for it to be
applied. I picked on this example because it was brought up in the article.
But, by the same token, people interested largely in technological improvement
are also needed. It takes a lot to move a discovery from a lab notebook into a
useful state.

I also categorically reject the notion of technology being a thing unto itself
that perpetuates itself. Humanity is the engine of innovation and no amount of
innovation is likely to change that any time soon. All technology and all
machines are ultimately at the service of humans. We are not in the service of
the machine. We are dependent upon our machines but are machines are not free
from us. This is why post-apocalyptic stories of AI destroying humanity remain
popular. We are uncomfortable and fearful of our own dependence.

The fear of both scientists and corporations is we fundamentally do not know
what the world looks like without government involvement. There is no roadmap
for a transition. There is no telling who would win and who would lose. In the
past several decades major research institutions both public and private have
all had shrinking "time-horizons" for their research. The time-horizon is when
the research (if fruitful) could result in technological advancement. In the
short term a transition to industry funded research would only accelerate that
trend.

In conclusion, science funding and science in general is deeply dysfunctional
right now. A lot of time is spent of obtaining and keeping funding. Our
funding system has likely caused a over supply of entry level researchers
which has fueled low wages. But at the same time, we do not know of a better
way to fund research at the moment. If non-governmental funding is better
there is no real way to try it that won't cause massive structural
unemployment and pain throughout our economy. As much as I would love to see
the scientists I know receive good wages for their important work I think it
is about as likely as properly paying pre-school teachers.

------
dang
"The Myth of Basic Science" is clearly one of those titles that will put the
entire thread on tilt, so we changed it to the subtitle.

Please comment only if you have something substantive to say. If you think the
article is unredeemably bad, you can always flag it, but don't degrade the
thread with empty dismissals.

~~~
forgotpwtomain
I don't understand why you need to censor the author's title for him -
obviously provocative and pompous titles will put the thread on tilt. If the
author wants to be taken seriously when they write editorials especially about
science presumably there should be some rigor involved in the process - not
just headline grabbing euphemisms. If the author's editorial doesn't evoke
substantive feedback - maybe that fault lies with their work rather than with
the readers?

~~~
dang
That's an argument for not changing linkbait titles on HN at all, which would
be a disaster for this place.

(Btw, author usually don't write the headlines, so it's good to give them the
benefit of the doubt on that.)

------
JoachimS
So, if technology is progressing in parallel, why do we need to support it by
enforcing monopolies with patents?

~~~
sea2summit
Patents are one of many market controls that keep capitalism from destroying
itself. They are, of course, abused like many things.

------
AnonNo15
It is deeply disturbing article, down to the point where it looks like an
attack on fundamental science.

Without science providing the explanation how all the fancy technology works,
inventors would be blind and deaf.

For example - how can you make an accurate GPS without understanding
relativity? How one can make a CPU without science of solid state physics? A
computer network without information theory?

The better explanation would that fundamental science research gives a
foundation for the future progress, in both applied science and technology.
Those next steps can happen sometimes much, much later so the science behind
it appears to be disconnected or a completely mundane knowledge by that time.

~~~
api
I found it disturbing for another reason too: the outright attack on the
uniqueness and value of individual thought.

Yes, several people invented light bulbs. When something is a good idea many
people will see that and produce variations on it. But that doesn't mean you
can factor out initiative and individual genius. It just means that lots of
people possess those virtues and that sometimes great minds do think alike.

The author of this piece seems to want to abstract us all into a giant
seething heap of flesh whose writhing produces some kind of inexorable motion
like the way molecules banging around produce pressure from a confined gas. I
don't think it follows.

Elsewhere someone wrote that this seems to be a British political hit piece on
science funding. Figures.

------
chrismealy
Yes, Lord Ridley, who inherited a bank and had to be bailed out by the
govnemtnet, lecturing everybody on the triumph of the free market. No thanks.

------
marcosdumay
The question on the subtitle:

> Does scientific research drive innovation?

This is so obvious that it becomes stupid. Of course it does, there's a lot of
research that had to occur before most innovations in history, and most of it
was not lucrative by itself.

But then, there's something to be said about bottlenecks. Basic research has
been far ahead actual production for a long while. As a consequence, one will
really not see any correlation between them.

~~~
eru
Throughout most of history, the causation was reversed. Technology drove
science much more than vice versa.

For example, Watt and friends improved steam engines, and only later formal
thermodynamics was invented to explain why and how steam engines work.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution))

You'll see a similar effect with the agricultural revolution. We know now that
legumes like clover provide nitrogen for the soil. But that's way after people
figured out it was a good idea.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolutio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution))

~~~
forgotpwtomain
> Throughout most of history, the causation was reversed. Technology drove
> science much more than vice versa.

You're just making a blanket statement with out providing a detailed
supporting narative.

For example: you mention agricultural production - What is the comparative
improvement achieved in 3000 years of say Human agrarian trial and error vs.
what was made possible by Gregor Mandel
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel))
and Modern genetics in the 20th century?

~~~
eru
I'd hope Wikipedia would provide that supporting narrative.

Science is awesome---but I don't see how even if the improvements since 1900
would dwarf any improvements before would have any bearing on my argument that
`throughout most history, the causation was reversed.' Those are two
completely independent observations.

In any case, it might be instructive to look at "Productivity improving
technologies"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_improving_technol...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_improving_technologies_\(economic_history\)))
and see how they enabled science vs were enabled by science.

Containerization of sea trade is one of my favourite topics there. It's a huge
productivity improver----but science played little role in its introduction
and success.

On the other hand, the Green Revolution is an example for the successful
application of science to technology. Also, the Haber-Bosch-Process
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Haber_process)).
Many of us wouldn't be alive today if not for these two developments.

As an aside on Mendel: his data looks too good on some measures.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel#Controversy))

------
jayvanguard
This man knows nothing of history, let alone physics.

------
forgotpwtomain
Why do we not need basic science? Because

> technology is self-organizing and can, in effect, reproduce and adapt to its
> environment. It thus qualifies as a living organism, at least in the sense
> that a coral reef is a living thing.

This piece is essentially just a hodge-podge of quotes by various sources
which are intended to vaguely support the headline of the article and in no
way actually addresses the tie between research results in science and
technological innovation.

If you want to read more worthless fluff (the not-at-all pompously titled book
is available in a book store near you):

> Mr. Ridley is the author of “The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas
> Emerge,”

------
gradstudent
What a vapid piece of ultra-capitalist rhetoric and self promotion.

According to the author we don't need any tax-payer funded research. Just
leave the market to do its thing and Science will take care of itself! Short-
term thinking; that's the ticket! eh?? eh??

Cripes.

