The U.S. ascended to scientific dominance by combining government funding with private sector innovation, a model sparked by Vannevar Bush's vision in "Science, the Endless Frontier." This report led to the creation of the National Science Foundation and prioritized basic research, fostering an environment where discoveries could flourish. Crucially, the U.S. leveraged its university system, attracting global talent and creating a pipeline of skilled researchers. This potent combination of government support, private enterprise, and academic excellence laid the foundation for American leadership in scientific breakthroughs and technological advancements.
Japan's scientific output has declined in recent decades, despite its continued investment in research. To regain its position as a scientific powerhouse, the article argues Japan needs to overhaul its research funding system. This includes shifting from short-term, small grants towards more substantial, long-term funding that encourages risk-taking and ambitious projects. Additionally, reducing bureaucratic burdens, fostering international collaboration, and improving career stability for young researchers are crucial for attracting and retaining top talent. The article emphasizes the importance of prioritizing quality over quantity and promoting a culture of scientific excellence to revitalize Japan's research landscape.
HN commenters discuss Japan's potential for scientific resurgence, contingent on reforming its funding model. Several highlight the stifling effects of short-term grants and the emphasis on seniority over merit, contrasting it with the more dynamic, risk-taking approach in the US. Some suggest Japan's hierarchical culture and risk aversion contribute to the problem. Others point to successful examples of Japanese innovation, arguing that a return to basic research and less bureaucracy could reignite scientific progress. The lack of academic freedom and the pressure to conform are also cited as obstacles to creativity. Finally, some commenters express skepticism about Japan's ability to change its deeply ingrained system.
The author argues that science has always been intertwined with politics, using historical examples like the Manhattan Project and Lysenkoism to illustrate how scientific research is shaped by political agendas and funding priorities. They contend that the notion of "pure" science separate from political influence is a myth, and that acknowledging this inherent connection is crucial for understanding how science operates and its impact on society. The post emphasizes that recognizing the political dimension of science doesn't invalidate scientific findings, but rather provides a more complete understanding of the context in which scientific knowledge is produced and utilized.
Hacker News users discuss the inherent link between science and politics, largely agreeing with the article's premise. Several commenters point out that funding, research direction, and the application of scientific discoveries are inevitably influenced by political forces. Some highlight historical examples like the Manhattan Project and the space race as clear demonstrations of science driven by political agendas. Others caution against conflating the process of science (ideally objective) with the uses of science, which are often political. A recurring theme is the concern over politicization of specific scientific fields, like climate change and medicine, where powerful interests can manipulate or suppress research for political gain. A few express worry that acknowledging the political nature of science might further erode public trust, while others argue that transparency about these influences is crucial for maintaining scientific integrity.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) abruptly paused most staff travel and external meetings, including advisory committee meetings, due to concerns about potential conflicts of interest and lapses in ethics rules. While the agency investigates and implements corrective actions, only mission-critical travel and meetings related to human subjects research or grant applications are currently allowed. This unexpected halt is causing disruptions across the biomedical research landscape, affecting grant reviews, policy decisions, and scientific collaboration.
Hacker News users discussed the abrupt halt of NIH meetings and travel, expressing surprise and speculating about the reasons. Some questioned whether it was related to biosecurity concerns, given the lack of transparency and sudden nature of the decision. Others pointed to potential budget issues or a bureaucratic reshuffling as more likely explanations. Several commenters with experience in government or academia suggested that while unusual, such sudden policy shifts can occur due to internal reviews or investigations, though the complete lack of communication was considered odd. A few users highlighted the disruptive impact on researchers and ongoing projects dependent on NIH funding and collaboration. The overall sentiment was one of confusion and a desire for more information from the NIH.
Summary of Comments ( 43 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43692360
Hacker News users generally agreed with the premise of the linked article about the U.S. becoming a science superpower through government-funded research during and after WWII, particularly highlighting the role of mission-oriented projects like the Manhattan Project and Apollo program. Some commenters emphasized the importance of basic research as a foundation for later applied advancements. Others pointed out the significance of immigration and talent attraction in the U.S.'s scientific success. Several expressed concern that the current political and funding climate may hinder future scientific progress, with less emphasis on basic research and more focus on short-term gains. A few cautioned against romanticizing the past, noting that wartime research also had negative consequences. There was also discussion of the cultural shift that prioritized science and engineering during this period, which some argued is now fading.
The Hacker News post titled "How the U.S. Became a Science Superpower" (linking to a Steve Blank article) has a moderate number of comments, offering a variety of perspectives on the article's thesis.
Several commenters agree with the core premise, highlighting the importance of government-funded research, especially during and after World War II, and the influx of European scientists as crucial factors in the U.S.'s scientific dominance. One commenter emphasizes Vannevar Bush's role and the establishment of a sustained funding mechanism for basic research. Another notes the significant contribution of Jewish scientists fleeing Nazi persecution. A further comment expands on the role of operation Paperclip and the ethical ambiguities surrounding the recruitment of German scientists.
Some commenters offer additional factors not explicitly mentioned in the article, such as the cultural emphasis on practical application and engineering, the vast resources and market size of the U.S., and the role of philanthropy in supporting research. One comment suggests the U.S.'s decentralized model of higher education played a role in fostering innovation, while another points to the openness of American society to immigrants.
A couple of commenters express skepticism about the "superpower" designation, arguing that other countries have also made substantial contributions to science and that the U.S. has faced challenges in recent decades, including declining funding for research and education. One points to the post-WWII environment as exceptionally conducive to the flourishing of science due to the combination of destroyed infrastructure abroad, new technologies and a focus on "big science" projects in the states. Another counterpoint notes potential oversimplifications in the narrative, suggesting the story is more nuanced than the article presents.
Finally, some comments focus on specific aspects of the article, such as the role of Bell Labs and the development of the transistor, or offer further reading on related topics, indicating engagement with the material and a desire to explore the historical context more deeply. One such comment mentions the book "Science Since Babylon," by Derek J. de Solla Price, offering an alternative view on the history of science and scientific revolutions.
While generally agreeing with the article's premise, the comments provide further context, nuance, and occasional counterpoints, enriching the discussion around the factors contributing to the U.S.'s scientific prominence. They provide a valuable layer of critical analysis and expand on the core ideas presented by Steve Blank.