Originally Posted by Wren
I am just practical. Chinese supercomputers are already so far beyond the US. US are falling behind. Perhaps then research should just be abandoned here and focus on the arts so we can be more creative.

I am, too-- but just LOOK at the arc of discovery and technology transfer for, say, penicillin. Or nuclear fission.

At some critical point, of course it is possible to cherry pick the basic research for ideas that can be driven to chosen end-use via focused development efforts (like the Manhattan Project, say), but that can't happen in the first place without the basic research that isn't "practical."

That's what I meant about serendipity. Sure, it's grossly inefficient, but it's still far better than anything else in terms of producing large leaps in technology.

There's a reason why it is termed research & development. They have to work in tandem, and usually in about that order, with a little back-and-forth at the interface. "Isn't that interesting" has to come before "what could I do with that."

The problem is that we've gotten a bit confused in the past decade or so and opted to think that development IS research.

We're about to get a major comeuppance on that score in antibiotic development, by the way. Pipeline is drying up there. Why? Too little basic research for too long, that's why.


Materials has had a similar problem-- or did, until recently.

Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.