Low Theory / Low Problem Focus - Linnaeus (or Roger Tory Peterson) Quadrant of Structured Observation.
Low Theory / High Problem Focus - Edison Quadrant of Problem solving with persevering trial and error
High Theory / Low Problem Focus - Bohr's Quadrant of theoretical exploration
High Theory / High Problem Focus - Pasteur's Quadrant- advances theory in search of a solution to an important problem
It's as often the case that practice / successful invention precedes theory as theory drives invention. Steam engines were invented, refined, and put to practical use for many decades before Carnot developed a theory of thermodynamics to model their operation.
I agree, rather than assuming 'technology is applied science' as being the case, science is often 'theoretical technology'. Things are discovered what work (through the trial-and-error of a curious mind), and later science works out a theory why it works - as in the example of the steam engine you gave.
Ah, good reminder about Stokes work, thank you Sean. I agree the model he presents is excellent. Although I still stand by my point that we need someone of the force and ability of Bush to take control of government science and enhance the public / private partnership. DARPA had it for a while but seem to have lost their way.
I think it's one thing in wartime to appoint a czar where needs are immediate and narrow; it's quite another in peacetime. I am much more in favor of multiple funding entities with overlapping responsibilities and different criteria to enable more wide-ranging exploration and experimentation.
Reasonable men may differ, but I don't think Bush's fundamental premise that any important breakthrough is preceded by basic research is born out by results since 1940. The personal computer, the World Wide Wide, minimally invasive surgical techniques, fracking, and the repurposing of hobby drones to transform modern warfare, to name a few.
I still think we need a master coordinator (Czar) Bush, in Science, The Endless Frontier, advocated for a National Research Foundation that, while providing central coordination and funding, was intended to support research across diverse institutions with a high degree of freedom for the investigators. His wartime OSRD was a unique response to an existential crisis, designed for speed and focused outcomes. He recognized the need for different approaches in different contexts.
Your point about multiple funding entities with overlapping responsibilities fostering wide-ranging exploration is right. Bush, despite his role in creating a centralized wartime effort, was also a firm believer in the power of individual initiative and diverse approaches. In The Essential Writings of Vannevar Bush it
notes that "competition among scientific groups is as important for producing outstanding researchers as competition among football teams is in producing greater quarterbacks".
Regarding your crucial point on the relationship between basic research and breakthroughs, it's a complex dynamic. While Bush argued that "this essential new knowledge can be obtained only through basic scientific research", the path from fundamental discovery to application is rarely strictly linear. Many of the examples you cite (PCs, WWW, surgical techniques, drones) certainly involved brilliant engineering, user-driven innovation, and the clever repurposing of existing technologies. However, it could also be argued that the foundational elements enabling those breakthroughs, semiconductors for PCs, networking protocols for the WWW, advances in materials and optics for surgery, control systems for drones, drew upon decades of earlier, often federally funded, basic research in physics, mathematics, materials science, and computer science.
The 'linear model' Bush championed was perhaps, as his biographer G. Pascal Zachary suggests, a pragmatic simplification to make science legible and fundable to policymakers. Bush himself acknowledged the messiness of discovery. The challenge today, as you imply, is to foster an innovation ecosystem that supports both fundamental inquiry and the diverse, often serendipitous pathways by which those discoveries are translated into transformative technologies, whether through established research channels or more unconventional routes.
Stopping or slowing down basic scientific research may not immediately harm a country but will lead to stagnation over the coming decades. The transformative technologies we rely on today—like semiconductors, the internet, renewable energy, and even AI itself—were born out of basic research conducted decades ago. Without sustained investment in such research, we risk losing the foundation necessary for future breakthroughs. While AI and robotics might help us "catch up" in some areas, they cannot replace the creativity, serendipity, and visionary thinking that basic research fosters. I still believe that AI will be a tool in the coming decades that can help with discovery and innovation, but it will not be able to do it independently for a while. It will also not be a substitute for long-term investment in fundamental science.
One of the biggest challenges we face today is the flawed incentive structure in research. The focus has shifted from transformative, high-risk research to publishing papers, which drives promotions, recognition, and funding. This "publish-or-perish" culture has turned research into a race for incremental improvements rather than bold, groundbreaking discoveries. Yet, the challenges we face—such as combating climate change, developing better energy storage, and creating new energy sources—demand much more than incremental advances. High-risk, high-reward research, even when it fails, pushes us forward and opens new doors. This type of research should be recognized and rewarded, as it is essential for addressing our current and future problems.
Government-funded research, the backbone of innovation in the 20th century, needs urgent reform. In his landmark report Science, The Endless Frontier, Vannevar Bush's vision laid the groundwork for the U.S. scientific dominance over the last 80 years. He understood that scientific progress relies on long-term investments and a willingness to embrace uncertainty. However, today's system has veered from that vision. Bureaucratic hurdles, short-term thinking, and risk aversion have stifled the potential for transformative breakthroughs.
We need a modern-day equivalent of Vannevar Bush—someone who can guide us through this era of unprecedented challenges and opportunities. This leadership would focus on:
a) Shifting incentives: Recognize and reward researchers who take risks and pursue transformative ideas, even if they fail.
b) Reducing bureaucracy: Allow scientists to focus on research rather than navigating red tape.
c) Encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration: Many modern challenges, like climate change and energy innovation, require expertise across multiple fields.
d) Leveraging new tools: Use AI and robotics to enhance productivity and creativity without losing sight of the human-driven nature of discovery.
e) Funding bold ideas: Create programs that explicitly support moonshot projects with uncertain outcomes but the potential for massive impact.
The future of humanity depends on our ability to innovate boldly, think long-term, and reform how we approach research. Basic research is not just an academic exercise; it is the driving force behind transformative progress. As we face existential challenges, we need to revisit and modernize the vision Vannevar Bush brought to life, aligning it with the tools and challenges of the 21st century. By doing so, we can ensure a better future for this planet and every person on it.
I will end with a quote from Benjamin Franklin: "An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest." This quote is more true than ever, given the challenges humanity faces today.
You are absolutely right that today's transformative technologies are built on yesterday's basic research, a point Vannevar Bush himself stressed.
Even as Bush architected a system for massive government funding, he warned about the 'danger of dictation of science by laymen' and the potential for programs to become overextended or to support 'the trivial and the mediocre' if not carefully managed. He understood that the organization and culture of research were as critical as the funding.
Your proposed focus points for new leadership align well with Bush's pragmatic, systems-thinking approach. He would likely have been intrigued by the potential of AI as a tool but would also have insisted, as you do, that it remain a tool in service of human creativity and fundamental discovery, not a replacement for it.
It's fascinating to consider how Vannevar Bush might approach these modern dilemmas. While he championed long-term investment in Science, The Endless Frontier, he was also a master pragmatist, deeply concerned with making science effective and responsive to national needs. Your call for a 'modern-day equivalent of Vannevar Bush' is exactly the same as mine; we do need leadership that can, as he did, bridge the worlds of fundamental inquiry and societal application. He recognized that 'science can be effective in the national welfare only as a member of a team' and that this team needed to be well-led and wisely structured. I just do not see this today, maybe at Anthropic?
The quote from Benjamin Franklin is a perfect coda, thank you for that.
Structure, collaboration, purpose - they seem to me to all create the foundation for advancement and success.
But as I reflect on what this partnership looks like today, it occurs to me that all good things have a cycle that provides value at the beginning, but in the end falls into something corrupt, or maybe just no longer relevant as the world changes around it.
Today, we have political agendas controlling which scientists get to speak and which are sidelined because they aren't following the narrative. We have public funding for universities with their own purses of hundreds of billions of dollars. We have public-private partnerships with government agencies and big tech the control everything from speech to who gets access to the public purse.
It is no wonder science is no longer trusted by the people, and perhaps that is because of this path toward linking science with politics. As valuable a strategy as it was in 1947, it seems we need a new strategy if we're to manage the technologies being built today.
Thank you Susan, you have put your finger on a crucial tension: the structures and collaborations that once propelled advancement can become rigid or co-opted over time.
It's interesting to note that Bush was not naive about these dangers. While he championed a strong partnership between science and government, he also explicitly warned about the "danger of dictation of science by laymen" and the potential for political agendas to unduly influence research. He was deeply concerned that if the process wasn't managed with integrity and a focus on genuine inquiry, it could lead to a 'stifling of opinions' which, he argued, 'can wreck any effort of free people, but it can wreck science more rapidly and completely'.
Your points about political agendas, the complexities of university funding, and the influence of public-private partnerships highlight how the 'ballpark' Bush described has evolved, with new ground rules and perhaps even new players holding significant power. The decline in public trust is a serious consequence, and it does suggest that the original 'strategy' needs re-examination and adaptation for the unique challenges of the 21st century. Bush believed in constant scrutiny and adaptation, and I suspect he would be among the first to call for a critical look at how his foundational vision is playing out today.
When we consider Bush's legacy, it might be useful to distinguish between the specific structures he helped create (which, as you point out, can become outdated or problematic) and the underlying principles he advocated. Principles like the necessity of basic research for national well-being, the importance of intellectual freedom for scientists, the need for a 'teamwork of technicians', and the idea of science as a public trust. How to uphold these principles within a contemporary context where political pressures, massive university endowments, and powerful tech entities create a very different landscape than the one Bush navigated. This is a critical question and I do not know of anyone working to that end.
I think with the advent of AI for the masses, we may actually see a backlash and move away from science and technology if we run into a significantly bad outcome. This too is a cycle that we've seen throughout history - multi-century advancements followed by multi-century movement backward. Bush was creating something valuable at a time when science research was developing quickly without any structure. It's now expanded from science to technology and been super-charged by capitalism and competition, driving massive disparities between the elites (uni educated) and everyone else. But nothing continues in the same direction forever. It's very possible that no one is working on creating new systems because it's beyond us or because we've peaked and the structure is the first thing to fail, followed by a lost desire to continue with head-long advancement.
We are at a critical time of reset in every aspect from economics to national borders. The technology will play a part in tearing the past few hundred years of work down with the weapons our technology is creating, and the human fear could possibly take us to a place of science denial. The fact that the call for STEM has been so loud for the last 10 years is perhaps one of the indicators that we are topping out. Likewise, today mysticism and religion are also taking root again - another indicator of a turn in sentiment away from hard science. All this doesn't lead to new structures to manage our advancement, but rather, a closing down as we step back from the abyss.
Today, people paying attention are excited about our foray into "the worlds of science fiction come to life", but at some point I suspect fear will turn that excitement into panic. Perhaps AI won't ever make it to the singularity because the heat of it will be too much to bare, and the myth of Icarus made real again.
Wow Susan, this is the best articulation of our current predicament I have read. I tried in my new post on Cognitive Laws to outline a way forward. And maybe with that we can build a better society, but you upend much of that.
While Bush was a profound optimist about the potential of science to solve problems and advance human understanding, he was also acutely aware of societal capacity to manage its creations. His call for a "memex" was, in part, an attempt to help humanity cope with an explosion of information. His work wasn't just about fostering scientific discovery; it was about creating structures and systems to guide and manage it for national and societal benefit. He was deeply concerned with the "art of management" and believed that without wise stewardship, even the most promising advancements could lead to negative outcomes.
The resurgence of mysticism and religion you note is a counter-trend to the push for STEM. Bush acknowledged the importance of "faith" for scientists and the "things of the spirit". He didn't see science as a replacement for deeper human yearnings for meaning, but rather as a framework upon which the spirit might rise.
Overall I have another view of the resurgence in religion, and cognitive issues. I will write about that soon. It is complicated. You gave me a lot to think about. Thank you.
So many ways to look at what is happening today :). Happy to give you something to chew on, as you do that for me regularly! Have a wonderful holiday weekend! Look forward to more philosophizing and peering into the crystal ball next week :)
Agreed. When the pace of change is overwhelming, people seek stability in old-time religion. Or any new religion. I think Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock" (1970) also predicted this.
Imagine that. A member of the wider Bush family who actually did some good. His message is especially salient today - with our government actively dismantling our scientific foundations.
It really is salient. A country progresses based on its scientific development. And he was a morally upright leader. We need people like him directing the process to ensure human flourishing. He certainly was a distant cousin of GW... far removed.
I think Donald Stokes offers a much better model for four kinds of research in his "Pasteur's Quadrant." (https://www.amazon.com/Pasteurs-Quadrant-Science-Technological-Innovation/dp/0815781776) than Vannevar Bush did.
Low Theory / Low Problem Focus - Linnaeus (or Roger Tory Peterson) Quadrant of Structured Observation.
Low Theory / High Problem Focus - Edison Quadrant of Problem solving with persevering trial and error
High Theory / Low Problem Focus - Bohr's Quadrant of theoretical exploration
High Theory / High Problem Focus - Pasteur's Quadrant- advances theory in search of a solution to an important problem
It's as often the case that practice / successful invention precedes theory as theory drives invention. Steam engines were invented, refined, and put to practical use for many decades before Carnot developed a theory of thermodynamics to model their operation.
I agree, rather than assuming 'technology is applied science' as being the case, science is often 'theoretical technology'. Things are discovered what work (through the trial-and-error of a curious mind), and later science works out a theory why it works - as in the example of the steam engine you gave.
Ah, good reminder about Stokes work, thank you Sean. I agree the model he presents is excellent. Although I still stand by my point that we need someone of the force and ability of Bush to take control of government science and enhance the public / private partnership. DARPA had it for a while but seem to have lost their way.
I think it's one thing in wartime to appoint a czar where needs are immediate and narrow; it's quite another in peacetime. I am much more in favor of multiple funding entities with overlapping responsibilities and different criteria to enable more wide-ranging exploration and experimentation.
Reasonable men may differ, but I don't think Bush's fundamental premise that any important breakthrough is preceded by basic research is born out by results since 1940. The personal computer, the World Wide Wide, minimally invasive surgical techniques, fracking, and the repurposing of hobby drones to transform modern warfare, to name a few.
I still think we need a master coordinator (Czar) Bush, in Science, The Endless Frontier, advocated for a National Research Foundation that, while providing central coordination and funding, was intended to support research across diverse institutions with a high degree of freedom for the investigators. His wartime OSRD was a unique response to an existential crisis, designed for speed and focused outcomes. He recognized the need for different approaches in different contexts.
Your point about multiple funding entities with overlapping responsibilities fostering wide-ranging exploration is right. Bush, despite his role in creating a centralized wartime effort, was also a firm believer in the power of individual initiative and diverse approaches. In The Essential Writings of Vannevar Bush it
notes that "competition among scientific groups is as important for producing outstanding researchers as competition among football teams is in producing greater quarterbacks".
Regarding your crucial point on the relationship between basic research and breakthroughs, it's a complex dynamic. While Bush argued that "this essential new knowledge can be obtained only through basic scientific research", the path from fundamental discovery to application is rarely strictly linear. Many of the examples you cite (PCs, WWW, surgical techniques, drones) certainly involved brilliant engineering, user-driven innovation, and the clever repurposing of existing technologies. However, it could also be argued that the foundational elements enabling those breakthroughs, semiconductors for PCs, networking protocols for the WWW, advances in materials and optics for surgery, control systems for drones, drew upon decades of earlier, often federally funded, basic research in physics, mathematics, materials science, and computer science.
The 'linear model' Bush championed was perhaps, as his biographer G. Pascal Zachary suggests, a pragmatic simplification to make science legible and fundable to policymakers. Bush himself acknowledged the messiness of discovery. The challenge today, as you imply, is to foster an innovation ecosystem that supports both fundamental inquiry and the diverse, often serendipitous pathways by which those discoveries are translated into transformative technologies, whether through established research channels or more unconventional routes.
Stopping or slowing down basic scientific research may not immediately harm a country but will lead to stagnation over the coming decades. The transformative technologies we rely on today—like semiconductors, the internet, renewable energy, and even AI itself—were born out of basic research conducted decades ago. Without sustained investment in such research, we risk losing the foundation necessary for future breakthroughs. While AI and robotics might help us "catch up" in some areas, they cannot replace the creativity, serendipity, and visionary thinking that basic research fosters. I still believe that AI will be a tool in the coming decades that can help with discovery and innovation, but it will not be able to do it independently for a while. It will also not be a substitute for long-term investment in fundamental science.
One of the biggest challenges we face today is the flawed incentive structure in research. The focus has shifted from transformative, high-risk research to publishing papers, which drives promotions, recognition, and funding. This "publish-or-perish" culture has turned research into a race for incremental improvements rather than bold, groundbreaking discoveries. Yet, the challenges we face—such as combating climate change, developing better energy storage, and creating new energy sources—demand much more than incremental advances. High-risk, high-reward research, even when it fails, pushes us forward and opens new doors. This type of research should be recognized and rewarded, as it is essential for addressing our current and future problems.
Government-funded research, the backbone of innovation in the 20th century, needs urgent reform. In his landmark report Science, The Endless Frontier, Vannevar Bush's vision laid the groundwork for the U.S. scientific dominance over the last 80 years. He understood that scientific progress relies on long-term investments and a willingness to embrace uncertainty. However, today's system has veered from that vision. Bureaucratic hurdles, short-term thinking, and risk aversion have stifled the potential for transformative breakthroughs.
We need a modern-day equivalent of Vannevar Bush—someone who can guide us through this era of unprecedented challenges and opportunities. This leadership would focus on:
a) Shifting incentives: Recognize and reward researchers who take risks and pursue transformative ideas, even if they fail.
b) Reducing bureaucracy: Allow scientists to focus on research rather than navigating red tape.
c) Encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration: Many modern challenges, like climate change and energy innovation, require expertise across multiple fields.
d) Leveraging new tools: Use AI and robotics to enhance productivity and creativity without losing sight of the human-driven nature of discovery.
e) Funding bold ideas: Create programs that explicitly support moonshot projects with uncertain outcomes but the potential for massive impact.
The future of humanity depends on our ability to innovate boldly, think long-term, and reform how we approach research. Basic research is not just an academic exercise; it is the driving force behind transformative progress. As we face existential challenges, we need to revisit and modernize the vision Vannevar Bush brought to life, aligning it with the tools and challenges of the 21st century. By doing so, we can ensure a better future for this planet and every person on it.
I will end with a quote from Benjamin Franklin: "An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest." This quote is more true than ever, given the challenges humanity faces today.
You are absolutely right that today's transformative technologies are built on yesterday's basic research, a point Vannevar Bush himself stressed.
Even as Bush architected a system for massive government funding, he warned about the 'danger of dictation of science by laymen' and the potential for programs to become overextended or to support 'the trivial and the mediocre' if not carefully managed. He understood that the organization and culture of research were as critical as the funding.
Your proposed focus points for new leadership align well with Bush's pragmatic, systems-thinking approach. He would likely have been intrigued by the potential of AI as a tool but would also have insisted, as you do, that it remain a tool in service of human creativity and fundamental discovery, not a replacement for it.
It's fascinating to consider how Vannevar Bush might approach these modern dilemmas. While he championed long-term investment in Science, The Endless Frontier, he was also a master pragmatist, deeply concerned with making science effective and responsive to national needs. Your call for a 'modern-day equivalent of Vannevar Bush' is exactly the same as mine; we do need leadership that can, as he did, bridge the worlds of fundamental inquiry and societal application. He recognized that 'science can be effective in the national welfare only as a member of a team' and that this team needed to be well-led and wisely structured. I just do not see this today, maybe at Anthropic?
The quote from Benjamin Franklin is a perfect coda, thank you for that.
Fascinating story Colin.
Structure, collaboration, purpose - they seem to me to all create the foundation for advancement and success.
But as I reflect on what this partnership looks like today, it occurs to me that all good things have a cycle that provides value at the beginning, but in the end falls into something corrupt, or maybe just no longer relevant as the world changes around it.
Today, we have political agendas controlling which scientists get to speak and which are sidelined because they aren't following the narrative. We have public funding for universities with their own purses of hundreds of billions of dollars. We have public-private partnerships with government agencies and big tech the control everything from speech to who gets access to the public purse.
It is no wonder science is no longer trusted by the people, and perhaps that is because of this path toward linking science with politics. As valuable a strategy as it was in 1947, it seems we need a new strategy if we're to manage the technologies being built today.
Thank you Susan, you have put your finger on a crucial tension: the structures and collaborations that once propelled advancement can become rigid or co-opted over time.
It's interesting to note that Bush was not naive about these dangers. While he championed a strong partnership between science and government, he also explicitly warned about the "danger of dictation of science by laymen" and the potential for political agendas to unduly influence research. He was deeply concerned that if the process wasn't managed with integrity and a focus on genuine inquiry, it could lead to a 'stifling of opinions' which, he argued, 'can wreck any effort of free people, but it can wreck science more rapidly and completely'.
Your points about political agendas, the complexities of university funding, and the influence of public-private partnerships highlight how the 'ballpark' Bush described has evolved, with new ground rules and perhaps even new players holding significant power. The decline in public trust is a serious consequence, and it does suggest that the original 'strategy' needs re-examination and adaptation for the unique challenges of the 21st century. Bush believed in constant scrutiny and adaptation, and I suspect he would be among the first to call for a critical look at how his foundational vision is playing out today.
When we consider Bush's legacy, it might be useful to distinguish between the specific structures he helped create (which, as you point out, can become outdated or problematic) and the underlying principles he advocated. Principles like the necessity of basic research for national well-being, the importance of intellectual freedom for scientists, the need for a 'teamwork of technicians', and the idea of science as a public trust. How to uphold these principles within a contemporary context where political pressures, massive university endowments, and powerful tech entities create a very different landscape than the one Bush navigated. This is a critical question and I do not know of anyone working to that end.
I think with the advent of AI for the masses, we may actually see a backlash and move away from science and technology if we run into a significantly bad outcome. This too is a cycle that we've seen throughout history - multi-century advancements followed by multi-century movement backward. Bush was creating something valuable at a time when science research was developing quickly without any structure. It's now expanded from science to technology and been super-charged by capitalism and competition, driving massive disparities between the elites (uni educated) and everyone else. But nothing continues in the same direction forever. It's very possible that no one is working on creating new systems because it's beyond us or because we've peaked and the structure is the first thing to fail, followed by a lost desire to continue with head-long advancement.
We are at a critical time of reset in every aspect from economics to national borders. The technology will play a part in tearing the past few hundred years of work down with the weapons our technology is creating, and the human fear could possibly take us to a place of science denial. The fact that the call for STEM has been so loud for the last 10 years is perhaps one of the indicators that we are topping out. Likewise, today mysticism and religion are also taking root again - another indicator of a turn in sentiment away from hard science. All this doesn't lead to new structures to manage our advancement, but rather, a closing down as we step back from the abyss.
Today, people paying attention are excited about our foray into "the worlds of science fiction come to life", but at some point I suspect fear will turn that excitement into panic. Perhaps AI won't ever make it to the singularity because the heat of it will be too much to bare, and the myth of Icarus made real again.
Wow Susan, this is the best articulation of our current predicament I have read. I tried in my new post on Cognitive Laws to outline a way forward. And maybe with that we can build a better society, but you upend much of that.
While Bush was a profound optimist about the potential of science to solve problems and advance human understanding, he was also acutely aware of societal capacity to manage its creations. His call for a "memex" was, in part, an attempt to help humanity cope with an explosion of information. His work wasn't just about fostering scientific discovery; it was about creating structures and systems to guide and manage it for national and societal benefit. He was deeply concerned with the "art of management" and believed that without wise stewardship, even the most promising advancements could lead to negative outcomes.
The resurgence of mysticism and religion you note is a counter-trend to the push for STEM. Bush acknowledged the importance of "faith" for scientists and the "things of the spirit". He didn't see science as a replacement for deeper human yearnings for meaning, but rather as a framework upon which the spirit might rise.
Overall I have another view of the resurgence in religion, and cognitive issues. I will write about that soon. It is complicated. You gave me a lot to think about. Thank you.
So many ways to look at what is happening today :). Happy to give you something to chew on, as you do that for me regularly! Have a wonderful holiday weekend! Look forward to more philosophizing and peering into the crystal ball next week :)
Agreed. When the pace of change is overwhelming, people seek stability in old-time religion. Or any new religion. I think Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock" (1970) also predicted this.
Ah yes, you are right, good reminder about Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock".
Imagine that. A member of the wider Bush family who actually did some good. His message is especially salient today - with our government actively dismantling our scientific foundations.
It really is salient. A country progresses based on its scientific development. And he was a morally upright leader. We need people like him directing the process to ensure human flourishing. He certainly was a distant cousin of GW... far removed.