RIP American innovation; The Washington Post, May 12, 2025

 Bina Venkataraman, The Washington Post; RIP American innovation

"That U.S. businesses have led the recent revolution in artificial intelligence is owed to the decades of research supported by the U.S. government in computing, neuroscience, autonomous systems, biology and beyond that far precedes those companies’ investments. Virtually the entire U.S. biotech industry — which brought us treatments for diabetes, breast cancer and HIV — has its roots in publicly funded research. Even a small boost to NIH funding has been shown to increase overall patents for biotech and pharmaceutical companies...

Giving out grants for what might look frivolous or wasteful on the surface is a feature, not a bug, of publicly funded research. Consider that Agriculture Department and NIH grants to study chemicals in wild yamsled to cortisone and medical steroids becoming widely affordable. Or that knowing more about the fruit fly has aided discoveries related to human aging, Parkinson’s disease and cancer.

For obvious reasons, companies don’t tend to invest in shared scientific knowledge that then allows lots of innovation to flourish. That would mean spending money on something that does not reap quick rewards just for that particular company.

Current business trends are more likely to help kill the U.S. innovation engine. A growing share of the country’s research and development is now being carried out by big, old companies, as opposed to start-ups and universities — and, in the process, the U.S. as a whole is spending more on R&D without getting commensurately more economic growth."

Britain’s Shaky Status as a Scientific Superpower; Atlantic, 6/24/16

Adrienne Lafrance, Atlantic; Britain’s Shaky Status as a Scientific Superpower:

"A sizable portion of funding for scientific research in the United Kingdom comes from EU grants, and the United Kingdom is one of the largest recipients of research funding in the union. Between 2007 and 2013, the U.K. received €8.8 billion—the equivalent of nearly $10 billion—for scientific research, according to a 2015 report published by the Royal Society, an independent scientific academy based in London. Drayson and others say it’s unlikely the United Kingdom will be able to negotiate a deal for such funding to continue...

Yet there’s more to the debate than money. More broadly, many scientists fear that international collaboration among researchers from across the EU will become difficult, if not impossible, once Britain leaves the union.

“Being in the EU gives us access to ideas, people and to investment in science,” Paul Nurse, the director of The Francis Crick Institute, told the BBC. “That, combined with mobility [of EU scientists], gives us increased collaboration, increased transfer of people, ideas and science—all of which history has shown us drives science.”

The European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, is a key example of the kind of collaboration that EU membership has enabled."