These government research institutions are some of the best things about the US, despite their flaws. They have saved millions of lives, not to mention their work on disability.
Absolutely. Much of the US dominance on the world stage post WWII is due to our unmatched investment in higher education and R&D. Attacking those will weaken the foundations of our health and prosperity, not to mention let illiberal nations like China blow past us in AI and other critical domains.
I understand not wanting to write about politics but it feels like a multiple battleships broadside salvo on science. In reference to a "break in infectious disease", it feels like a tactic in the aftermath of the pandemic. Pathogens tend to have other plans. Nice work summary here...know personally how hard it to put this together.
Trying to reduce the politics content is one part deliberate strategy to not turn off some of my readers who don't care or disagree with my views, one part maintaining my sanity, and another part not giving in to the Bannon "flood the zone with shit" playbook.
In his first term, I definitely spent a lot of time getting sucked into nonsense controversies. This time I want to be more discerning and try to separate the signal from the noise for my readers. Do I have thoughts about certain hand gestures from a juvenile billionaire troll? Yes. Will that ultimately matter for my life or others around me? No.
What WILL matter is hollowing out the NIH, CDC, FDA, HHS, USDA, and other alphabet-soup agencies. Slashing federal research funding and attacking higher education is a BFD. Those are the things I'm going to focus on as much as possible
Real science is not the emasculated peer-reviewed stuff that happens in universities. (The phrase “peer review” only appears in reference to medical studies before about 1970 - when technological progress in America become anemic.)
Science and technological advancement happens when brilliant men are unfettered from the nattering HR-lady class of regulators and administrators and given the means to pursue their whims. It doesn’t come from committees. All advancement comes from a small group of geniuses, who carry the rest of us along with them.
Peer-review is neither emasculated nor restricted to universities (it happens in private companies and government, too), and it has absolutely nothing to do with HR. While it is true that modern peer-review started in the 70s, your causality is backwards: it is exactly because the research output increased so much in the post-war era that journal editors had a hard time knowing what to publish without outside feedback. While there are many valid criticisms of peer-review, it undoubtedly improves the quality of research papers. This is a good article on the matter:
I would also dispute that "All advancement comes from a small group of geniuses, who carry the rest of us along with them." The entire history of scientific progress comes from the incremental work of scientists building off prior discoveries. Watson and Crick get the credit for discovering the DNA double-helix, but their model would not have been possible without all of the people who figured out x-ray crystallography (including Rosalind Franklin, who history robbed of acknowledgement because she was a woman), those who figured out nucleotides and bonding patterns, etc. Even the unquestionable genius Isaac Newton wrote to Robert Hooke in humility:
"What Des-Cartes [sic] did was a good step. You have added much several ways, & especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Steven Johnson’s excellent book offers a more nuanced view of the scientific legends that we have been taught all these years. Not surprisingly as Eric suggests, the discoveries we attribute to one (white male) person are actually the work of unnamed others. I believed like you that so many discoveries were Eureka moments by small group until I read it. Hope you can pick it up!
Scientists and engineers are like athletes, you have a relatively small number of Micheal Jordans, vast numbers who play rec league, and many in between. In many areas it’s the elite who achieve the majority of important breakthroughs. The most extreme example is physics, where a very small number of super-geniuses make breakthroughs often in something that approaches a fugue state, that they themselves often cannot comprehend in the morning. On the other extreme you have grinding life sciences stuff that relies on endless numbers of low level grunts trapping field mice or otherwise just looking for some thing that has heretofore escaped observation; the fields are all very different.
But the advances that serve to give a country technological primacy (and thus military and economic primacy, not field mouse primacy) tend to be the Michael Jordan types. When we say science we really mean technology, because technology is all that matters from a geo-strategic standpoint. Tech is what results in military and economic primacy. Knowledge of the migration patterns of field mice, while interesting, doesn’t affect our place in the world. Science that doesn’t affect technological primacy is rec league science, and it’s a human tragedy if you have your Micheal Jordan’s wasting their lives in the rec league.
Michael Jordan didn’t discover basketball. Others have and will play the game better than him. He would also have been just another great player without David Falk’s representation.
Even physics is not invented out of thin air. It is based on the work of others. Einstein used advanced calculations performed by Grossman, Besso, Hilbert and other mathematicians to formulate his theory of relativity.
I’m not sure that I can name a scientist or even a Nobel Laureate who worked completely on his/her own. In many cases, their work was frankly stolen from others.
One of the things that I love most about science is the collaboration and learning.
“Knowledge of the migration patterns of field mice, while interesting, doesn’t affect our place in the world.”
Again, I strongly disagree. Basic science discovery research is the foundation of tons of consumer technology, pharmaceuticals, and more. A very incomplete list:
- microbiologists who studied yogurt bacteria discovered CRISPR, which gives humanity the power to literally edit genomes
- exploratory mechanistic research on mRNA processing led to lifesaving vaccines in record time during the COVID-19 pandemic
- basic virology research into HIV gave us the protease inhibitors that have turned a fatal plague into a mild, chronic illness
- plenty of other inventions ranging from GPS to teflon to radar and more came out of benchtop research
I already explained why the “great man” theory of science is wrong, and adding in a sports analogy doesn’t change that. I suspect you are just trolling, but in any event I’d encourage you to educate yourself before spouting off nonsense
"History’s long and complex pattern of “basic” scientific research leading, not necessarily in a straight line, to technological breakthroughs is dramatically illustrated by World War II’s three most iconic inventions: radar, the bomb, and the computer."
"Bush had all of that in mind, and more, when in 1945 he made the case for the practical import of “basic science” in what is perhaps the most influential science policy document of modern times, “Science — The Endless Frontier.” In it, Bush argued that the government should continue its generous funding of scientific research during peacetime, but with this important caveat: “We must remove the rigid controls which we have had to impose, and recover freedom of inquiry and that healthy competitive scientific spirit so necessary for expansion of the frontiers of scientific knowledge.” He wanted to be sure the government supported basic science, not just applied research and development — precisely to enable future technological revolutions... What Bush recognized was that, for the most part, such scientific discoveries do not come from directed or applied research of the sort the government engaged in during wartime but rather from undirected basic research."
Great summary. Frightening times are ahead. And, yes, I'm officially concerned on several levels.
These government research institutions are some of the best things about the US, despite their flaws. They have saved millions of lives, not to mention their work on disability.
This is going to be a fascinating few years.
Absolutely. Much of the US dominance on the world stage post WWII is due to our unmatched investment in higher education and R&D. Attacking those will weaken the foundations of our health and prosperity, not to mention let illiberal nations like China blow past us in AI and other critical domains.
I understand not wanting to write about politics but it feels like a multiple battleships broadside salvo on science. In reference to a "break in infectious disease", it feels like a tactic in the aftermath of the pandemic. Pathogens tend to have other plans. Nice work summary here...know personally how hard it to put this together.
Trying to reduce the politics content is one part deliberate strategy to not turn off some of my readers who don't care or disagree with my views, one part maintaining my sanity, and another part not giving in to the Bannon "flood the zone with shit" playbook.
In his first term, I definitely spent a lot of time getting sucked into nonsense controversies. This time I want to be more discerning and try to separate the signal from the noise for my readers. Do I have thoughts about certain hand gestures from a juvenile billionaire troll? Yes. Will that ultimately matter for my life or others around me? No.
What WILL matter is hollowing out the NIH, CDC, FDA, HHS, USDA, and other alphabet-soup agencies. Slashing federal research funding and attacking higher education is a BFD. Those are the things I'm going to focus on as much as possible
this ecologist is sending love and strength to all the biomedical folks out there — it’s going to be a LONG four years for both of us.
Thank you, we're gonna need it 🙏
Real science is not the emasculated peer-reviewed stuff that happens in universities. (The phrase “peer review” only appears in reference to medical studies before about 1970 - when technological progress in America become anemic.)
Science and technological advancement happens when brilliant men are unfettered from the nattering HR-lady class of regulators and administrators and given the means to pursue their whims. It doesn’t come from committees. All advancement comes from a small group of geniuses, who carry the rest of us along with them.
Peer-review is neither emasculated nor restricted to universities (it happens in private companies and government, too), and it has absolutely nothing to do with HR. While it is true that modern peer-review started in the 70s, your causality is backwards: it is exactly because the research output increased so much in the post-war era that journal editors had a hard time knowing what to publish without outside feedback. While there are many valid criticisms of peer-review, it undoubtedly improves the quality of research papers. This is a good article on the matter:
https://mitcommlab.mit.edu/broad/commkit/peer-review-a-historical-perspective/
I would also dispute that "All advancement comes from a small group of geniuses, who carry the rest of us along with them." The entire history of scientific progress comes from the incremental work of scientists building off prior discoveries. Watson and Crick get the credit for discovering the DNA double-helix, but their model would not have been possible without all of the people who figured out x-ray crystallography (including Rosalind Franklin, who history robbed of acknowledgement because she was a woman), those who figured out nucleotides and bonding patterns, etc. Even the unquestionable genius Isaac Newton wrote to Robert Hooke in humility:
"What Des-Cartes [sic] did was a good step. You have added much several ways, & especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Steven Johnson’s excellent book offers a more nuanced view of the scientific legends that we have been taught all these years. Not surprisingly as Eric suggests, the discoveries we attribute to one (white male) person are actually the work of unnamed others. I believed like you that so many discoveries were Eureka moments by small group until I read it. Hope you can pick it up!
Extra Life: A Short History of Living Longer https://a.co/d/65f7j2S
Excellent recommendation, thanks for sharing!
Scientists and engineers are like athletes, you have a relatively small number of Micheal Jordans, vast numbers who play rec league, and many in between. In many areas it’s the elite who achieve the majority of important breakthroughs. The most extreme example is physics, where a very small number of super-geniuses make breakthroughs often in something that approaches a fugue state, that they themselves often cannot comprehend in the morning. On the other extreme you have grinding life sciences stuff that relies on endless numbers of low level grunts trapping field mice or otherwise just looking for some thing that has heretofore escaped observation; the fields are all very different.
But the advances that serve to give a country technological primacy (and thus military and economic primacy, not field mouse primacy) tend to be the Michael Jordan types. When we say science we really mean technology, because technology is all that matters from a geo-strategic standpoint. Tech is what results in military and economic primacy. Knowledge of the migration patterns of field mice, while interesting, doesn’t affect our place in the world. Science that doesn’t affect technological primacy is rec league science, and it’s a human tragedy if you have your Micheal Jordan’s wasting their lives in the rec league.
Michael Jordan didn’t discover basketball. Others have and will play the game better than him. He would also have been just another great player without David Falk’s representation.
Even physics is not invented out of thin air. It is based on the work of others. Einstein used advanced calculations performed by Grossman, Besso, Hilbert and other mathematicians to formulate his theory of relativity.
I’m not sure that I can name a scientist or even a Nobel Laureate who worked completely on his/her own. In many cases, their work was frankly stolen from others.
One of the things that I love most about science is the collaboration and learning.
All of this x1,000!
“Knowledge of the migration patterns of field mice, while interesting, doesn’t affect our place in the world.”
Again, I strongly disagree. Basic science discovery research is the foundation of tons of consumer technology, pharmaceuticals, and more. A very incomplete list:
- microbiologists who studied yogurt bacteria discovered CRISPR, which gives humanity the power to literally edit genomes
- exploratory mechanistic research on mRNA processing led to lifesaving vaccines in record time during the COVID-19 pandemic
- basic virology research into HIV gave us the protease inhibitors that have turned a fatal plague into a mild, chronic illness
- plenty of other inventions ranging from GPS to teflon to radar and more came out of benchtop research
I already explained why the “great man” theory of science is wrong, and adding in a sports analogy doesn’t change that. I suspect you are just trolling, but in any event I’d encourage you to educate yourself before spouting off nonsense
EDIT: Here is some good reading on the subject: https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/the-auspicious-history-and-future-of-basic-science-research/
"History’s long and complex pattern of “basic” scientific research leading, not necessarily in a straight line, to technological breakthroughs is dramatically illustrated by World War II’s three most iconic inventions: radar, the bomb, and the computer."
"Bush had all of that in mind, and more, when in 1945 he made the case for the practical import of “basic science” in what is perhaps the most influential science policy document of modern times, “Science — The Endless Frontier.” In it, Bush argued that the government should continue its generous funding of scientific research during peacetime, but with this important caveat: “We must remove the rigid controls which we have had to impose, and recover freedom of inquiry and that healthy competitive scientific spirit so necessary for expansion of the frontiers of scientific knowledge.” He wanted to be sure the government supported basic science, not just applied research and development — precisely to enable future technological revolutions... What Bush recognized was that, for the most part, such scientific discoveries do not come from directed or applied research of the sort the government engaged in during wartime but rather from undirected basic research."