Opinion: Will innovation flourish in the future? by Jerome I. Friedman
Sam Wormley
Opinion
Will innovation flourish in the future?
by Jerome I. Friedman
Science and technology grew exponentially during the 20th century. But
will the conditions necessary for creating the kinds of innovations
that shape our lives be sustained in the future?
By definition, the word innovate means to bring in something new, to
make changes in something established. Clearly, there is a continuum of
innovation that ranges from breakthroughs that change the underpinnings
of our society to new methods or tools to solve particular problems.
The major innovations of the future, those that will shape society,
will require a foundation of strong basic research. Innovation is the
key to the future, but basic research is the key to future innovation.
And today, the future of basic research appears vulnerable.
Although applied research and invention play important roles in
innovation, they do not generally produce the major conceptual
breakthroughs necessary for creating radically new technologies. The
limitation of focused or problem-oriented research becomes apparent in
the following observation: If you know what you are looking for, you
are limited by what you know. As inventive as Thomas Edison was, he
could not have created the transistor-perhaps the most important
invention of the 20th century. To elucidate this point, it is useful to
trace the transistor's development.
In the latter 19th century, scientists studied the atomic spectra
of various elements.
In 1885, Johann Balmer discovered his formula for the spectral
lines of the hydrogen atom; the Lyman, Pfund, Brackett, and Paschen
spectral series followed.
In 1900, Max Planck proposed the concept of the quantum in the
emission of energy; and in 1905, Albert Einstein developed the idea
of the quantum of energy in the radiation field (the photon).
In 1911, Ernest Rutherford discovered the atomic nucleus in
alpha-particle scattering experiments and confirmed the "planetary
model" of the atom.
Two years later, Niels Bohr developed a semiclassical model of the
hydrogen atom based on a quantization of the electron orbit; it
accounted for the observed discrete spectra of hydrogen and
established a new model for the atom's stability.
In 1925 and 1926, Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger developed
quantum mechanics.
In 1928, Felix Bloch applied the full machinery of quantum
mechanics to the problem of conduction in solids, spearheading the
development of the modern theory of solids.
In 1929, Walter Schottky and others found electron "holes" in the
valenceband structure of semiconductors, uncovering the mechanism
of semiconductor behavior.
In 1933, solid-state diodes were used as receiving rectifiers.
In the late 1930s and early 1940s, investigators began doping
silicon and germanium to create new semiconductors.
In 1947, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain took out a patent for the
transistor, and William Schockley applied for a patent for the
transistor effect and a transistor amplifier.
In 1951, semiconductors entered the world market. Four years later,
transistors had replaced nearly all tubes.
In 1959, Robert Noyce and Jack Kilby invented the integrated
circuit.
This example demonstrates how basic research established the
foundations of the technological revolution created by the invention of
the transistor. Brattain said it clearly: "The transistor came about
because fundamental knowledge had developed to a stage where human
minds could understand phenomena that had been observed for a long
time. In the case of a device with such important consequences to
technology, it is noteworthy that a breakthrough came from work
dedicated to the understanding of fundamental physical phenomena,
rather than the cut-and-try method of producing a useful device."
Ironically, quantum mechanics-an abstruse conceptual framework in
physics that was developed to explain the structure of the atom-came to
underlie some of our most important technologies. It has contributed to
the development of the Internet, computers, lasers, consumer
electronics, atomic clocks, and superconductors, to mention a few.
Symbiotic research In addition to basic research, applied research and
product development played crucial roles in the transistor's
development. New technologies clearly cannot be created without a
synthesis of all three. And often the boundaries between these types of
research get blurred. Sometimes applied research leads to important
basic knowledge, and technologies developed for basic research lead to
broader applications. Accelerators, for example, were invented to study
the interactions of subatomic particles; and now various types are used
for such diverse applications as cancer therapy, studying the structure
of viruses, designing new drugs, and the fabrication of semiconductors
and microchips.
Other examples include the Global Positioning System, nuclear medicine,
and diagnostic tools such as magnetic resonance imaging. The World Wide
Web provides an especially interesting example. Based on the concept of
the Internet, it was developed at CERN (the European Organization for
Nuclear Research) to enable high-energy physicists worldwide to
exchange data and programs and to work together more effectively. The
rapidly developing Web is changing the way we communicate, teach, and
do business and is promoting economic growth in many parts of the
world.
It is also accelerating advances in scientific knowledge and
innovation, and it has dramatically changed the scientific landscape.
The Web spreads scientific information much faster than printed
scientific journals do, and this speeds the flow of work. For example,
the human genome is available online to any molecular biologist with a
computer connected to the Internet. The Web is also having an effect on
economic growth through its impact on scientific research and
innovation. This raises the question of the relationship between
research and the gross domestic product.
Economists have studied the impact of research on various measures of
wealth or well being, which reflect the economic impact of the
innovations derived from research. They have estimated that one-half to
two-thirds of the economic growth of developed nations is
knowledge-based. Recent studies have estimated that the average annual
rate of return on R&D investment ranges from 28% to 50%, depending on
the assumptions used. Although there is uncertainty in these numbers,
there is general agreement that the impact is huge and that past
investment in research has paid for itself many times over.
In the United States and in other countries, university research has
generated technology- based industries and a large number of jobs. A
1997 study found that Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni,
faculty, and staff have founded more than 4,000 companies during the
last four decades, which employ more than 1.1 million people and have
annual world sales of $232 billion. Most of these companies are
knowledge based. This emphasizes the necessity of keeping research
universities strong to maintain a high level of innovation. They
provide the scientific workforce of the future; they are the source of
most of the research that drives major innovation; and young people
with new ideas start many new companies after leaving the university.
Protecting innovation
Creativity is the basis of all innovation, and although it is doubtful
that it can be taught, creativity should be nurtured in those who have
it. Innovation ultimately depends on a scientifically and
technologically creative workforce. Thus, in addition to strong
research universities, there should be pre-university schools of
excellence that bring together the best young minds to introduce them
early to science and give them opportunities for creative work.
Corporations and government research agencies should support special
educational projects, such as science fairs for young students. Many
outstanding young scientists participated in science fairs as high
school students.
Here are some other suggestions for enhancing innovation:
Young people should be given good support and freedom in their
research. They are the greatest source of scientific creativity
because they are not as committed to existing scientific orthodoxy,
and they have the energy and enthusiasm to push new ideas. As the
zoologist Konrad Lorenz once said, "The best morning exercise for a
researcher is to cast off one favorite hypothesis ever y day before
breakfast." The young do this better than anyone else.
We should willingly take risks in supporting new projects. The
tendency is to play it safe when funding is low, but we need to
remember that the greatest risks have the greatest payoffs. In
addition, individuals or small groups should be given sufficient
latitude to develop new ideas, which take time and are often only
accepted with difficulty by others.
People who innovate should get recognition and appropriate
compensation for what they do, especially young people.
We should not allow institutional boundaries to impede
interdisciplinary research. Some of the most important innovations
of the future can be expected from such collaborations. Excessive
bureaucracy is distracting, time-consuming, and destructive to
creativity.
The scientific and technology communities must also address another set
of issues. As science and technology advance, we see a growing public
concern about their social and cultural consequences. There are fears
about whether future developments in robotics, genetic engineering, and
nanotechnology, for example, will enhance the welfare of humankind or
prove to be a Faustian bargain. Such fears are causing a technological
backlash, especially in developed nations. The science and technology
communities must engage in these discussions, be completely open to
listening to such concerns, and assess and address them. If we do not
listen and respond, we will lose the public as partners.
Basic vulnerability
All of these recommendations for protecting and enhancing future
innovation assume an appropriately funded research environment. But who
will support basic research in the future? Industry, which previously
supported a significant amount, no longer does so because global
competition has put an enormous amount of economic pressure on
corporations.
Private industry makes R&D investments that are expected to pay off in
5 to 7 years. but it won't make the 20- to 30-year investments
necessary to create entirely new industries. Such long-term investments
in R&D have been cut as firms have merged and downsized. Companies that
once did long-term R&D, such as AT&T and IBM, have seen their
industries become highly competitive. To compete, they have largely
withdrawn from supporting basic research.
Patents are a strong indicator of innovation. A 1997 study funded by
the National Science Foundation found strong evidence that publicly
financed scientific research plays a large role in the breakthroughs of
industrial innovation in the United States. It reported that 73% of the
main science papers cited by American industrial patents in two prior
years involved domestic and foreign research financed by government or
nonprofit agencies. Such publicly financed science, the study
concluded, has turned into a fundamental pillar of industrial advance.
This shows the close connection between national science budgets and
the economy, and points to the importance of establishing good bridges
between universities, government, and industrial laboratories.
Of all the types of research, basic research is the most vulnerable. It
is a risky activity that seeks scientific knowledge for its own sake
without thought of practical ends, and neither its outcome nor its
applications can be predicted in advance. Even great scientists have
fallen woefully short in making such predictions. Ernest Rutherford,
discoverer of the atomic nucleus, said in 1933, "Anyone who expects a
source of power from the transformation of the atom is talking
moonshine." Nine years later, Enrico Fermi produced the first
self-sustaining chain reaction.
In addition, there are often long delays in the applications that arise
from basic research, such as occurred in the invention of the
transistor. Because of these factors, the public and many political
leaders do not fully understand the importance of basic research. With
the exception of biomedical research, basic research generally does not
rank high among a nation's priorities. The public and political leaders
seem to recognize that it is important to understand how nature works
in all domains and at all levels. But given the needs of society, this
argument is not sufficiently persuasive to convince political leaders
to make the needed investment in basic research. They want to hear
about applications, economic growth, and competitiveness.
We can make such arguments; but if they want examples, we can only talk
about the past because we cannot make specific promises about the
future. We can tell them, however, that throughout history, advances in
scientific knowledge have resulted in revolutions in technology that
have improved the standard of living and changed our way of life.
Although direct benefits from basic research generally require several
decades, they do come. Electricity and magnetism were laboratory
curiosities in the early 1800s and did not become a factor in people's
lives until more than half a century later. And there are many other
examples.
Future innovations
It is clear to me that under the right conditions, future technologies
will be created that we cannot even imagine. Think of someone in the
year 1900 trying to imagine what would exist in the year 2000. The
developments so familiar to us today would be inconceivable to this
individual then. Even developments of current technology are difficult
to foresee. Who, in 1987, would have been able to predict the World
Wide Web, which started in 1990?
Nonetheless, we can safely say that there certainly will be profound
innovations in many current technologies. These areas include
biotechnology, energy production, computation, artificial intelligence,
robotics, miniaturization, communication, sensors, and materials.
Although not all human problems can be fixed by technology because of
their political nature, many of them could be significantly alleviated
by major technological innovations.
The challenges faced by science and technology today are crucial for
the future of humankind. They include:
Improving the general health of the world population.
Understanding ecological and environmental issues and providing
guidance to policy makers.
Providing sufficient food for the world's rapidly growing
population.
Developing alternative sources of energy and substitutes for
increasingly scarce natural resources.
Providing new technologies to enhance the quality of life of our
citizens while extending those benefits to regions and groups that
have not yet shared in them.
To achieve these goals, we must provide sufficient support for
continued progress in basic science, applied science, and engineering.
We have to expand our base of knowledge and provide our young people
with an education that will enable them to utilize and further expand
this knowledge and produce the innovations we need for the future.
Jerome I. Friedman is a professor of physics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in Cambridge and shared the Nobel Prize in
Physics in 1990. This article has been adapted from his keynote address
at a conference titled "Infrastructure for e-Business, e-Education,
e-Science, and e-Medicine" that was held at the Scuola Superiore G.
Reiss Romoli in L¡'Aquila, Italy, July 29-August 4, 2002.
Robert Kolker
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Providing sufficient food for the world's rapidly growing
> population.
>
Feeding the poor only encourages them to have more children thus
exacerbating the problem. If the poor are to be fed by their betters,
then poor women must turn in their eggs. Otherwise we will be up to our
eyebrows in misery and squallor. Either the miserable of the earth must
agree to birth control or they must be allowed to die of disease and
starvation.
Bob Kolker
Traveler
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
It is because of senile old fucks like you and Wormley that the world
has a population problem in the first place. Even animals know
instinctively how to tie birth rate to territory and resources, but
with morons like you in charge, fucking is open season. And you have
the nerve to think you know enough to solve the problem of
overpopulation and hunger? Fuck both of you! You're gonna get what's
coming to you. And it's coming real fast!
Louis Savain
-------------------------------------------------
Temporal Intelligence:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Temporal_Intelligence.htm
The Silver Bullet:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Reliability.htm
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/Crackpots/notorious.htm
greysky
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E3750F6...@attbi.com...
A guy named J. Swift *(a politican, maybe??)* had a modest proposal for
dealing with the worlds' poor.... check it out. You may develop a taste for
his solutoin.
Greysky
Robert Kolker
greysky wrote:
>
> A guy named J. Swift *(a politican, maybe??)* had a modest proposal for
> dealing with the worlds' poor.... check it out. You may develop a taste for
> his solutoin.
Reading -A Modest Proposal- made a vegitarian out of me.
I do not propose smoking dead third worlders up for Bully Beef, but I
advise against feeding them and leaving their reproductive abilities intact.
Bob Kolker
Bill Vajk
> Even animals know
> instinctively how to tie birth rate to territory and resources, but
> with morons like you in charge, fucking is open season.
Actually it is not the reproduction rate that controls
population density in stressful situations, it is the
die offs. Humans do it with things like disease, warfare,
and intentional starvation.
William J. Vajk
Techny, Illinois
Gee
Uncle Al
> Here are some other suggestions for enhancing innovation:
>
> Young people should be given good support and freedom in their
> research.
[snip]
100% counter to modern funding practice. Junior faculty gets
nothing. Why should they get funding? They have no track record. A
funding agency might be embarassed by their failure (or their success,
offending a well-funded pressure group).
> We should willingly take risks in supporting new projects.
[snip]
100% counter to modern funding practice. A successful funding
proposal is a business plan - it has a definitive conclusion, a known
output, a PERT chart, an exact budget, and zero quantified risk (and
"more studies are needed"). If one seeks funding one seeks the least
publishable unit.
1) The most successful project is an ongoing project. If somebody
already supported it, it is a safe administrative bet.
2) The next most successful project is a killed project. Whew, I'm
glad we got rid of that thing!
3) The least fundable project is a new project. Risk is not
fundable.
>
> People who innovate should get recognition and appropriate
> compensation for what they do, especially young people.
[snip]
People who innovate should get fired. Insubordination is discharge
for cause. Who would support some git making us redo all our
spreadsheets, DCF/ROI projections, and budgets?
> We should not allow institutional boundaries to impede
> interdisciplinary research.
Tell that to management. The goals of management are stability,
administrative growth, self-reward, and fungible subordinates (tossed
into volcanoes to quiet unhappy gods). I don't see any of that being
shared with what is being managed. Quite the opposite - management is
a jealously guarded social prerogative. Management is orthogonal to
merit. If you wish to be a manager, learn how to play golf and
delegate liability.
> Some of the most important innovations
> of the future can be expected from such collaborations. Excessive
> bureaucracy is distracting, time-consuming, and destructive to
> creativity.
[snip]
Ha ha ha! Try getting something through OSHA, the EPA, the FDA...
Homeland Security at an airport. Try building an extension onto your
house. HA HA HA!
> we see a growing public concern about their social and cultural
> consequences.
[snip]
Social advocates are firebreathing morons - priests with new gods
demanding alms, or else. Why doesn't somebody call their bluff?
Repeatedly.
[snip]
> Of all the types of research, basic research is the most vulnerable. It
> is a risky activity that seeks scientific knowledge for its own sake
> without thought of practical ends, and neither its outcome nor its
> applications can be predicted in advance.
Lucent Technologies has taken Bell Labs and enhanced that paragon of
basic research fully into managerial strata - fraud.
[snip]
> It is clear to me that under the right conditions, future technologies
> will be created that we cannot even imagine.
[snip]
Bad phraseology, that. Somebody will imagine it. Five years later it
will be homework problems.
> Who, in 1987, would have been able to predict the World
> Wide Web, which started in 1990?
Who manages the Web? Who legislates the Web? Who taxes the Web? Who
manipulates the Web? Who controls Web content? Who would ever be
supportive of making another mistake like that again?
> Nonetheless, we can safely say that there certainly will be profound
> Improving the general health of the world population.
Why? The world would extraordinarily benefit from 4 billion Third
World deaths. Having one third of your population be a vast economic
burden with full poltical power to enforce their appetites for the
last 30 years of their lives is stupid. It is also a financial
impossibility.
> Understanding ecological and environmental issues and providing
> guidance to policy makers.
Meaningless. Central control is central ruin. What is a
"policymaker?" It is a politician marketable to the highest bidder.
"Environmental issues" are non-existent. They are not based upon
objective observation.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/comprom.htm
The Mathematical Impossibility of Compromise.
> Providing sufficient food for the world's rapidly growing
> population.
You don't throw gasoline onto a fire, you kill it with water. Death
to reproductive warriors. If a society wants a bigger piece of the
pie, let them learn how to bake - or starve.
> Developing alternative sources of energy and substitutes for
> increasingly scarce natural resources.
There is no scarcity of energy. The world is drowning in fossil fuels
and uranium. There is politics and raw political power. God loves
death.
> Providing new technologies to enhance the quality of life of our
> citizens while extending those benefits to regions and groups that
> have not yet shared in them.
Who are you to tell me what a quality life is? Is a quality life
women walking about bare-breasted with hairy armpits, or is it wearing
a digital watch and deodorant? Is it walking through a forest
unbothered by a billion people who want to walk through the same
forest, or is it a T3 connection to the Web? Is it 20 wives or
enforced celibacy?
People get what they deserve as what they earn through their own
exercised responsibilities. To give them anything else is cultural
aggression and conquest.
> To achieve these goals, we must provide sufficient support for
> continued progress in basic science, applied science, and engineering.
NSF: $ 4 billion/year
War on Drugs: $18 billion/year (100% thrown to pigs)
Project Head Start" $1.3 billion/year (100% thrown to pigs) What has
30 years of Project Head start achieved?
> We have to expand our base of knowledge and provide our young people
> with an education that will enable them to utilize and further expand
> this knowledge and produce the innovations we need for the future.
African-Americans have no need or desire for European cultural
hegemony (other than Welfare, Medicaid, and immunity from
prosecution). African-Americans deserve compensation. Objective
criteria are enforced racism of the most heinous kind.
> Jerome I. Friedman is a professor of physics at the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology in Cambridge and shared the Nobel Prize in
> Physics in 1990. This article has been adapted from his keynote address
> at a conference titled "Infrastructure for e-Business, e-Education,
> e-Science, and e-Medicine" that was held at the Scuola Superiore G.
> Reiss Romoli in L¡'Aquila, Italy, July 29-August 4, 2002.
Try growing some lysine-enhanced corn to end starvation, or
carotene-enhanced rice so that a million Asian kids/year are not
blinded. Unknown risks! Ha ha ha.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Maleki
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in
<3E373EDB...@mchsi.com> that:
>Who, in 1987, would have been able to predict the World
>Wide Web, which started in 1990?
Huh! My brother in 1974 "predicted" it. He was telling
me one day within next 25 years everybody will have his
own computer and they will all be linked to each other
and to libraries and schools. Newspapers and books
become nonexistent and all information will be shared
or purchased/exchanged via computers.
Personal computers in its full present role was
envisioned and studied first in Germany, not USA. My
brother had studied in Germany for about 9 years and
had just come back home when he was telling me about
all this. He also spoke of hand-held computers coming
later and as wrist watches attached to wrists for short
transactions while being away from home on expeditions
or picnics or hiking, etc. This stuff was not science
fiction back then, it was discussed seriously by German
avant garde intellectuals. The American counterparts of
them in those days were undergoing the great American
sex revolution of the 1970s. "Hey, we can discuss the
clitoris in the press now!"
-------------------------
asari bar vojude 'u moteratteb nist.
"Jalal Ale-Ahmad"
Robert Kolker
Maleki wrote:
> Huh! My brother in 1974 "predicted" it. He was telling
> me one day within next 25 years everybody will have his
> own computer and they will all be linked to each other
> and to libraries and schools. Newspapers and books
> become nonexistent and all information will be shared
> or purchased/exchanged via computers.
Vanever Bush sketched out the concept of hyperpointers in 1949. The idea
of a network has been a-growin' since the translatlantic cable was layed
down in 1869.
Bob Kolker
Maleki
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in
<3E388E4A...@attbi.com> that:
>Vanever Bush sketched out the concept of hyperpointers in 1949. The idea
>of a network has been a-growin' since the translatlantic cable was layed
>down in 1869.
These were general ideas. What Germans discussed was
exactly what we see now, but 30 years ago. This is not
to mean V Bush was not a visionary.
By the way you once asked about Hafez and meaning of
his poems. There is a site for him where all his works
can be read or downloaded in Persian with English
translation. A huge part is obviously lost in
translating state of the art poetry, but I guess that's
the closest one can get without knowing Persian.
http://www.hafizonlove.com/
-------------------------
cheguneh mitavAn eslAm rA, An ruhe hayAtbakhshe
khallAghe enghelAbi va rowshangar va ghodratsAz va
kheradafruz va tamaddon'Afarin rA, ke be ommate
khish ezzat va esteghlAl va zendegi va dAnesh va
imAn va harkat va ma'naviyyat va servat va erfAn
va shamshir va kineh va eshgh va enteghAm va afv
va jahAd va solh va ta'assob va tasAhol va AzAdi
va rahbari va vAghe'bini va ArmAnkhAhi va eftekhAr
va forutani va esyAn va parastesh va ensAniyyat va
AgAhi mibakhshid, az a'mAghe tArike tArikh va az
hesAre kohneh va darbasteye ghadim birunash Avard,
va AnrA dar kAlbode puke in zamAn, va dar vejdAne
pAke in nasle bipanAh va bihadaf, va jAme'ehAye
mordeh va bazakkardeye shebhe-eslAmi - ke kaftArhA
puzeh dar An foru borde'and va jarsumeye sadhA
bimAri dar ofunate An miparvarand - be e'jAze
masihA'iye An, zendeh va bidAr sAkht?
pAsokhe be in so'Al harcheh bAshad, Anche mosallam
ast in ast ke mas'uliyyati sakht sangin ast va
besyAr fowri va hayAti. harke bAshim, va dar har
tabagheh va yA har tavAni, fargh nemikonad. zirA
Anche dar injA Adami rA mas'ul mikonad "Adami"
budane 'ust.
"Ali Shari'ati"
jmfb...@aol.com
Maleki <male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:30:34 GMT, Robert Kolker
><bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in
><3E388E4A...@attbi.com> that:
>
>>Vanever Bush sketched out the concept of hyperpointers in 1949. The idea
>>of a network has been a-growin' since the translatlantic cable was layed
>>down in 1869.
>
>These were general ideas. What Germans discussed was
>exactly what we see now, but 30 years ago.
And while they were discussing it, we were selling it over 30 years
ago. So was our competitors. The limiting factor was weight and
cost.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Thinh Tran
[Applaud] Bravo! For a while I was afraid Uncle Al had run out of
ideas, seeing him repeating the "toilet paper in India" bit over and
over...
Finally something great. The best satire I've ever read on the
NG's. The man still has great mileage.
Way to go, Uncle Al!!!!
Thinh Tran (http://www.thinhtran.com)