...what does it mean to the US? It will make the US happy because, "...if China produces Nobel-quality science, it won't put the United States out of business; rather, Chinese discoveries will help American scientists discover more, too".Whatever China makes it will sell it to the US too. "...so whatever makes it more productive has some upside for the United States as well".
We should also understand that "competition between countries, unlike companies, is a positive-sum game". At least for the US. Because, "In the race to turn scientific ideas into businesses, the United States is hard to beat".
Read this interesting op-ed in Washington Post that I came across via some blog - The Fake Science Threat. It states that the alarm that some scientists are creating in the US that its scientific innovation will suffer due to competition by other countries, is spurious. If someone else is doing high quality research, it will only boost us to do even better. Most things in that article hold not just for innovation in the US but for the process of innovation itself. I agree with most of it, in principle. However, is there a way by which I can help the rife holier than thou attitude a little bit?
See. "...in the competition to retain the best research scientists, the United States has a lead that tends to reinforce itself. Because nearly all the world's top universities are American, the world's top researchers flock here; provided enough visas are available, it's hard to see why this would change". What you meant to ask, Sebastian Mallaby, if we consider a reasonably long period of time, is not "why would" but "why should". For not just it should, but it also would change. But even that should not cause an alarm for your science lobby guys because, as you rightly said, research and innovation will remain a positive sum game. Just that the game and its sum will be a little more distributed.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
the article is a pathetically inadequate attempt at ego-massaging. plus, it is condescending.
Why should we find that article to be condescending? I guess we are too self concious and feel inferior. There are substantive ideas in that post. I don't know about ego-massaging, but there is self assuredness. I have also brought that out and countered in the post.
finding it condescending need not have anything to do with me feeling inferior. and i dont think being self-conscious is a bad thing...
the way i see it, there is a lot of ego-massaging and self-consolation in that article. the self-assuredness coupled with arrogance+ignorance is what brings about the ego-massaging and the condescension.
in fact, there is no question of feeling inferior.
(i had missed this point before. :D)
mandar:
indian science today is definitely inferior to american science. if you are inferior, it is natural to feel inferior.
i'd rather accept this reality and do something about it, than deny its existence and feel blindly confident.
There is no problem with accepting that reality of course. But it is also true that things would change, however slow the change be.
Yes, things can and do change. And personally, I'm quite optimistic about the outlook regarding Indian contribution to science and technology in this century.
sir:
firstly, i would like to know what indian science is and what american science is.
i dont think is natural to feel inferior. it might be ok to feel inferior, but definitely not natural.
and i am not blindly confident. i am informedly confident.
on a different note, india's contribution to science and technology is not a rare thing. we have been contributing and we will continue to do so.
i dont think comparison of contributions is plausible.
i am sorry if it seems like i am being fussy in my previous two comments. but i have reasons for making each of those statements, which i may not really prefer to talk about in the public domain.
it does leave one restless when one has thoughts to share, but one simply cant share them immediately! ah, well, perhaps it is best that one remains restless.
#Sigh# I don't know where this discussion is heading. Let me absolve myself first. I think this post has two simple points (which are clear at least to me).
1. The articulation of competition among nations as far as innovation is concerned being a positive sum game in that op-ed.
2. Over a reasonably long period of time this positive sum game wont remain as centralised as it is now. So, one cannot afford to be too self assured in the longer run.
----
India has made contribution to Mathematics and Science. Fine. But in the "modern era" research and innovation has not really taken root here. But things are changing towards better, albeit slowly. And the first thing one has to do, if one wants to be supeior is to admit that one is inferior.
And the first thing one has to do, if one wants to be supeior is to admit that one is inferior.
i guess one needs to be humble and aware, instead of inferior. and i believe one can be humble and aware without feeling inferior.
firstly, i would like to know what indian science is and what american science is.
*sigh* science that is developed in india is indian science and science that is developed in america is american science.
i guess one needs to be humble and aware, instead of inferior. and i believe one can be humble and aware without feeling inferior.
Sanket, I believe, is talking about being inferior as a scientist, not as a person.
Scientific processes and their rigour are much inferior in India than in the US in the present day. Of course, things change and are changing and at quite a pace.
Sanket, I believe, is talking about being inferior as a scientist, not as a person.
Precisely! And let me pitch in just one more point. When I said "admit", it means admitting to oneself or being aware of one's own lack of contribution, and not admitting to some one else (be it one's advisor, another researcher, a US based scientist). It is not just uncecessary, it is also reduntant! They already know that I haven't contributed much.
Post a Comment