America's new era of private science

economist.com

2 points·andsoitis··2 comments

Is the cause of our scientific stagnation primarily tied to funding models (public vs. private), or is it an incentive problem where we simply no longer run boundary-testing experiments?

Maybe the current grant system penalizes experiments where the outcome isn't somewhat known in advance. With all the capital flowing into research, what actual boundary-testing experiments are happening right now? Is it possible to a priori systemically differentiate a boundary test worth doing from a crackpot idea?

I produced a documentary exploring this tension in the context of one scientists potentially boundary pushing OR crackpot idea to test the hard limits of computation (the 3-minute video primer here: https://youtu.be/vF_g5Uh5MEg, and the full doc: https://youtu.be/yTQa3O7Qlm4).

My question is if we are not running these kinds of high-risk, unknown-upside experiments, what happens when a competing state actor (China) decides to run them first and stumbles into a breakthrough?

Is this just silly?

"Now there are signs the innovation machine is breaking down. The system’s critics fret that America’s scientific infrastructure encourages groupthink, since a small number of committees distribute a large share of funding for basic research. They worry that universities are ill-suited to the interdisciplinary work that much of 21st-century science requires."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com