ELI the ICE Man: The Relationship between Technology and Science
In the last Presidential election cycle, the major party candidates dropped hints about creating jobs by fostering technology and innovation. Sociologist Anthony Giddens defined and delimited their thinking when he cited “innovation centers” near universities such as Cambridge. At the Repubican Party nominating convention former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cited Silicon Valley, Boston's Route 128, and Austin, Texas, as magnets for people from around the world with advanced university degrees. But it is at once more complicated and simpler than that. Basically, the nature of innovation defies planning, a harsh reality for all the planners running for political office.
Electrical technicians know the mnemonic ELI the ICE man. In an inductive (L) circuit the measured voltage (E) sine wave precedes the measured current (I): E Leads I. In a Capacitive circuit, the sine wave of current (I) precedes the measured sine wave of voltage (E): ICE. Thus, Eli the Iceman. So, too, with technology and science, does one or the other lead to simplify the analysis. In fact – in reality for both non-trivial circuits, as for economic systems – isolating one or the other is a convenience of analysis. No formula exists for creating innovation centers or every town with a college or university could boast of having one.
It is a principle of Austrian economic theory that entrepreneurship is ineffable. Yes, it helps to know accounting, and marketing, and organizational development, and to have motivation, being willing to work hard for 18 hours a day, and to know how and when to delegate responsibility, and all that and more. Ultimately, the pieces do not add up. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Case studies show people who fail despite having all of these, and others who succeed despite lacking one or more of them.
“Laissez nous faire!” According to historical legend, the phrase stems from a meeting in about 1680 between the powerful French finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert and a group of French businessmen led by a certain M. Le Gendre. When the eager mercantilist minister asked how the French state could be of service to the merchants, and help to promote their commerce, Le Gendre replied simply "Laissez-nous faire."
If you examine the broad history of science and technology from the steam engine and thermodynamics through electricity and its opening up the physics of quantum mechanics, to the atomic age, the space age, the post-industrial revolution of the information age, and the immediate promise of 3-D printing and nanotechnology, it is obvious that government programs to “create” high-technology centers can only (at best) replicate the successes of the previous generation. They cannot bring true innovation and invention.
Electrical technicians know the mnemonic ELI the ICE man. In an inductive (L) circuit the measured voltage (E) sine wave precedes the measured current (I): E Leads I. In a Capacitive circuit, the sine wave of current (I) precedes the measured sine wave of voltage (E): ICE. Thus, Eli the Iceman. So, too, with technology and science, does one or the other lead to simplify the analysis. In fact – in reality for both non-trivial circuits, as for economic systems – isolating one or the other is a convenience of analysis. No formula exists for creating innovation centers or every town with a college or university could boast of having one.
It is a principle of Austrian economic theory that entrepreneurship is ineffable. Yes, it helps to know accounting, and marketing, and organizational development, and to have motivation, being willing to work hard for 18 hours a day, and to know how and when to delegate responsibility, and all that and more. Ultimately, the pieces do not add up. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Case studies show people who fail despite having all of these, and others who succeed despite lacking one or more of them.
“Laissez nous faire!” According to historical legend, the phrase stems from a meeting in about 1680 between the powerful French finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert and a group of French businessmen led by a certain M. Le Gendre. When the eager mercantilist minister asked how the French state could be of service to the merchants, and help to promote their commerce, Le Gendre replied simply "Laissez-nous faire."
If you examine the broad history of science and technology from the steam engine and thermodynamics through electricity and its opening up the physics of quantum mechanics, to the atomic age, the space age, the post-industrial revolution of the information age, and the immediate promise of 3-D printing and nanotechnology, it is obvious that government programs to “create” high-technology centers can only (at best) replicate the successes of the previous generation. They cannot bring true innovation and invention.
My wife worked in gov't program evaluation for a few years before starting her own practice. She said THE EXACT same thing. She has a masters in public administration. She believed in gov't. After working with them, she now has contempt for them.
And what you said is exactly true. Politicians like to find small amounts of waste, like that they were paying to maintain cars but could have come out ahead renting them as needed. Large projects have too many people behind them. They do not want someone to break a bona fide scandal or show a problem in a project that has support from many politicians.
As cgervasi says " boondoogles for those good at grant writing and/or politically connected to the agencies that disburse money. "
As for " to reduce poverty and improve education."
Well I am sympathetic to that, but if you ignore the theoretical arguments against, the record is poor especially when considering the vast sums spent. Where it seems to work, say Singapore, South Korea, I suggest it is due mainly to a Confucian value culture.
I speak from experience in financial evaluation in government- small projects are analyzed with incredible detail, big projects get pretend evaluations that support decisions already made, many major projects get the go-ahead without any business case at all (eg. Australia's broadband network).
We have this paradigm that scientists discover abstract truths that engineers turn into practical processes and machines which technicians maintain. But I believe that that is largely false, The history of innovation appears to point in the other direction. Watt's steam engine antedated the science of thermodynamics by over 100 years. The same pattern seems true in very many other cases.
One counter-example may be the atomic bomb and nuclear engineering. Theoretical physicists were content to debate abstractions, but the war forced a directed effort.
In some alternate universe where World War I did not happen - and hence no WW II - someone might have taken the Curies' work with radium and perhaps devised a way to make steam from the energy in radioactive ores. (The ores were more radioactive than uranium itself, hinting at the presence of other elements: polonium and radium.) Just to note that the atomic bomb (nuclear power) did come from theory to engineering, but, seemingly, as an exception to a different experience, entirely.
I believe that Nicola Tesla was the model for John Galt - perhaps not intentionally: Rand used this idea before - in that (1) he developed practical engineering applications by investigating basic science and (2) the government seized all of his notes and still could not duplicate his work.
I am an unusual Rand supporter because I support gov't efforts to reduce poverty and improve education. I am open to gov't programs to encourage innovation, but I agree it's tricky. It's easy for programs to become boondoogles for those good at grant writing and/or politically connected to the agencies that disburse money.
I remember thinking this when McCain said he wanted a gov't prize for someone who invents a battery suitable for cars that holds as much power as a tank of gas. (It was some specific technology similar to that; I can't recall the details.) I thought this is silly. The next transportation power technology could be something completely different-- maybe some fuel cell that can be charged using the heat exhaust from a cogeneration power plant. We don't need gov't to offer a prize to invent a new energy source.
Long before Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand knew the story of the Wright Brothers versus Samuel Langley of the Smithsonian. The government poured something like $100,000 in two dramatic failures while the Wrights invested about $14,000 of their own money in their successes. Many other such stories are easy to find.