X-Message-Number: 5089 From: (David Stodolsky) Subject: Re: Technological Progress Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 21:35:01 +0100 Saul Kent <> writes: > I now believe that the requisite basic research would be adquately > funded privately if there was no government-sponsored research. I now believe This is only true if the private funders do not require full return on their investment. For theoretical reasons, full value of new inventions cannot be fully recovered, even considering patent exploitation, etc. The way to understand this is that just the idea that something can be done is of value, and there is no way to recover this value. For example, the Soviet Union was able to build an atom bomb very quickly after its existence was revealed. The only real "secret" about the atom bomb was that it could be built. After the word was out, any advanced physics student could do it, given the resources. Failure to understand this contributed to the execution of the Rosenbergs and the surrounding "Atom Spy Hoax" (I think that's the title of a book). Similarly, once someone demonstrates reversible suspension, there will be no way to control the technology. The original inventors will never recover their investment. However, avoiding death would be fine consolation prize. On the other hand, raising capitol on this basis could probably not be done through conventional investment instruments. The money would have to given away. Something like a church might be the best model. Some years back there was a big push for private exploration/exploitation of space resources. This led nowhere, apparently due to the payback period being too long for investors. If reversible suspension requires the same kind of investments, then the outlook for private investment is not good, regardless of theoretical questions. On the other hand, building political support to the level where a government can be brought to support suspension research is not a near term prospect. However, we should keep in mind that a great deal of research along this line was funded by NASA, until their money ran out. This suggests that if research funding can be expanded, then suspension research could benefit. Unfortunately, the current climate in the US points in the direction of a cut of 1/3 in research funding for the future. There seem no justification for this except opposition to "big government" supported by a general anti-scientific attitude in the country. The theoretical point, while not new, is referenced in this draft: ------------------------------------------------- Dr. Christian Groth Economics Institute Studiestraede 6 DK-1455 Copenhagen K Tlf. +45 35 32 30 28 R&D, Human Capital, and Economic Growth Abstract: A growth model is constructed which emphasizes R&D and human capital accumulation as distinct phenomena, both necessary for sustained growth. The distinction is not only of theoretical interest, but has implications for empirical predictions and for policy. In contrast to other R&D-based growth models, our model implies growth in the size of the market relevant to each invention, and this helps explaining the empirical tendency for the patent/R&D-expenditure ratio to fall; the pressure for migration that we observe in the world comes out naturally from the model without having to add a positive externality from average human capital; economic integration increases the proportion of its available time that society will want to spend on research and education, and a higher growth rate will result; although the market economy devotes too little effort to both education (or imitation) and research, only the latter needs public support. ------------------------------------------------- David S. Stodolsky Euromath Center University of Copenhagen Tel.: +45 38 33 03 30 Fax: +45 38 33 88 80 (C) Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5089