With the changing world order, I have been studying what happened in and after WWII to learn how science helped shift the center of power from Europe to the US.
We Europeans have very little knowledge of exactly how to take the big bets that has served the US militarily and economically since then.
Here’s some of my (slightly rambling) notes from reading the Endless Frontier with this aim:
This is an interesting read. I didn't get through all of nor did I delve into it more deeply but it does feel a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
It seems pretty clear to me that post WWII, the USA poured significant investment into R&D through the umbrella of defense but it's not clear to me that there weren't other major contributing factors. The American education system used to be famously egalitarian, where many Nobel laureates came out of it. Copyright, intellectual property, patents, regulatory freedom, employment freedom, to name a few, might all be significant contributing factors for the science and technology success. Not to mention that the USA was the only major industrialized nation still standing after the war.
I can believe the basic thesis is correct, that focus on defense leads to more funding for practical science and technology and that the practically minded approach of the military helps guide R&D into widespread adoption, but, to me, it smacks of a sort of self serving nationalistic narrative. Not to get too into vibes territory, but it does seem like Thiel's philosophy is lurking in the background, being hawkish about defense spending and guiding arguments towards monopolistic moat building.
There's a large portion of science that can only be done with top-down spending because of the extreme capital resources involved but, from my perspective, some of the most ubiquitous science has come from humble beginnings, often starting out as grass roots efforts and eventually finding commercial adoption. Its not clear at all to me that the USAs success in R&D wasn't in spite of its military roots, not because of it. More importantly, its not clear that the same recipe for R&D success of the last century will work in this one.
The legacy of the generation that survived WWII was:
- Big domestic policy mistakes cause bad outcomes, like the Great Depression.
- Big foreign policy mistakes cause extremely bad outcomes, like WWI and WWII.
- Big command mistakes in the military get people killed.
This led to a mindset that the people picked to be in charge had to be very competent. Or else. Almost all Cabinet members passed the competence filter until the Greatest Generation died off.
It's a common mistake to think that things won't change, that the current state will persist forever. I will turn this around and ask why you thought a focus on science was going to be durable.
Bush's report was submitted in the months between the German surrender and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. It was a remarkable context for scientific optimism, given the huge impact of science and technology on the war effort. Radar developments are obviously an unalloyed good for shooting down German bombers.
Scientific progress is arguably even more relevant today, but the vision of the future has changed for the average American. Many achievements of the ensuing eight decades (vaccines eliminating polio and measles, nuclear energy, computing and social networks, cheap solar and wind, fracking, automation and artificial intelligence, cheap spaceflight) are viewed with fear and suspicion by large, different fractions of the US. Unfortunately, ceding scientific leadership to other powers does not reduce the destabilizing force of progress -- but I think there's some explanatory power here in simultaneously shutting down science and pursuing economic isolationism.
While not fully economic isolationism, there was a drive to turn the national focus away from looking outward to gazing at the national navel. Apollo, and much of NASA's ambitious projects, were cut short thanks to defunding in order to deploy those funds towards social projects such as the War on Poverty. The Malthusian worldview of those like Paul Ehrlich led to a system less interested in risk management and more interested in employing the precautionary principle. This often resulted in decisions that were more concerned about the negative aspects of the short term rather than the necessary transitions required to achieve long term goals.
A prescient document that I have come back to many times in my own scientific career. It is striking how little those in power now seem to actually understand what was so clear in 1945:
"To create more jobs we must make new and better and cheaper products. We want plenty of new, vigorous enterprises. But new products and processes are not born full-grown. They are founded on new principles and new conceptions which in turn result from basic scientific research. Basic scientific research is scientific capital. Moreover, we cannot any longer depend upon Europe as a major source of this scientific capital. Clearly, more and better scientific research is one essential to the achievement of our goal of full employment.
How do we increase this scientific capital? First, we must have plenty of men
and women trained in science, for upon them depends both the creation of new
knowledge and its application to practical purposes. Second, we must strength-
en the centers of basic research which are principally the colleges, universities, and research institutes. These institutions provide the environment which is most conducive to the creation of new scientific knowledge and least under pressure for immediate, tangible results. With some notable exceptions, most research in industry and in Government involves application of existing scientific knowledge to practical problems. It is only the colleges, universities, and a few research institutes that devote most of their research efforts to expanding the frontiers of knowledge."
and
"Science Is a Proper Concern of Government
It has been basic United States policy that Government should foster the opening of new frontiers. It opened the seas to clipper ships and furnished land for pioneers. Although these frontiers have more or less disappeared, the frontier of science remains. It is in keeping with the American tradition—one which has made the United States great—that new frontiers shall be made accessible for development by all American citizens.
Moreover, since health, well-being, and security are proper concerns of Government, scientific progress is, and must be, of vital interest to Government. Without scientific progress the national health would deteriorate; without scientific progress we could not hope for improvement in our standard of living or for an increased number of jobs for our citizens; and without scientific progress we could not have maintained our liberties against tyranny."
and
"Freedom of Inquiry Must Be Preserved
The publicly and privately supported colleges, universities, and research institutes are the centers of basic research. They are the wellsprings of knowledge and understanding. As long as they are vigorous and healthy and their scientists are free to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, there will be a flow of new scientific knowledge to those who can apply it to practical problems in Government, in industry, or elsewhere."
Generated comments are not allowed on HN. Would you please stop posting these and please stop creating multiple accounts? I'm afraid you've crossed well over the line into abusing HN, and I assume it's not your intent to do so.
Nice to see this posted here.
With the changing world order, I have been studying what happened in and after WWII to learn how science helped shift the center of power from Europe to the US. We Europeans have very little knowledge of exactly how to take the big bets that has served the US militarily and economically since then.
Here’s some of my (slightly rambling) notes from reading the Endless Frontier with this aim:
https://skaersoe.com/2025/03/19/lessons-from-vannevar-bush-o...
Currently I’m looking for like minded people to communicate the gap: https://frontier.ngo/
This is an interesting read. I didn't get through all of nor did I delve into it more deeply but it does feel a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
It seems pretty clear to me that post WWII, the USA poured significant investment into R&D through the umbrella of defense but it's not clear to me that there weren't other major contributing factors. The American education system used to be famously egalitarian, where many Nobel laureates came out of it. Copyright, intellectual property, patents, regulatory freedom, employment freedom, to name a few, might all be significant contributing factors for the science and technology success. Not to mention that the USA was the only major industrialized nation still standing after the war.
I can believe the basic thesis is correct, that focus on defense leads to more funding for practical science and technology and that the practically minded approach of the military helps guide R&D into widespread adoption, but, to me, it smacks of a sort of self serving nationalistic narrative. Not to get too into vibes territory, but it does seem like Thiel's philosophy is lurking in the background, being hawkish about defense spending and guiding arguments towards monopolistic moat building.
There's a large portion of science that can only be done with top-down spending because of the extreme capital resources involved but, from my perspective, some of the most ubiquitous science has come from humble beginnings, often starting out as grass roots efforts and eventually finding commercial adoption. Its not clear at all to me that the USAs success in R&D wasn't in spite of its military roots, not because of it. More importantly, its not clear that the same recipe for R&D success of the last century will work in this one.
Well Europe being heavily bombed set things back a decade or two.
This is interesting. Cab you tell us more about the kind of contribution from other like-minded people you are looking for?
I assume you’ve read or watched the Secret History of Silicon Valley?
Crazy to think USA went from “Cabinet of scientific minds” to “LinkedIn All-Stars of political loyalty and TV appearances.”
The legacy of the generation that survived WWII was:
- Big domestic policy mistakes cause bad outcomes, like the Great Depression.
- Big foreign policy mistakes cause extremely bad outcomes, like WWI and WWII.
- Big command mistakes in the military get people killed.
This led to a mindset that the people picked to be in charge had to be very competent. Or else. Almost all Cabinet members passed the competence filter until the Greatest Generation died off.
It's a common mistake to think that things won't change, that the current state will persist forever. I will turn this around and ask why you thought a focus on science was going to be durable.
Stop with the trite and easily dismantled false dichotomies.
Bush's report was submitted in the months between the German surrender and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. It was a remarkable context for scientific optimism, given the huge impact of science and technology on the war effort. Radar developments are obviously an unalloyed good for shooting down German bombers.
Scientific progress is arguably even more relevant today, but the vision of the future has changed for the average American. Many achievements of the ensuing eight decades (vaccines eliminating polio and measles, nuclear energy, computing and social networks, cheap solar and wind, fracking, automation and artificial intelligence, cheap spaceflight) are viewed with fear and suspicion by large, different fractions of the US. Unfortunately, ceding scientific leadership to other powers does not reduce the destabilizing force of progress -- but I think there's some explanatory power here in simultaneously shutting down science and pursuing economic isolationism.
While not fully economic isolationism, there was a drive to turn the national focus away from looking outward to gazing at the national navel. Apollo, and much of NASA's ambitious projects, were cut short thanks to defunding in order to deploy those funds towards social projects such as the War on Poverty. The Malthusian worldview of those like Paul Ehrlich led to a system less interested in risk management and more interested in employing the precautionary principle. This often resulted in decisions that were more concerned about the negative aspects of the short term rather than the necessary transitions required to achieve long term goals.
Would any American object to bringing Roosevelt back from the dead? The political roster of today is a far cry from yesteryear's.
Young Roosevelt, maybe. Old Roosevelt, no. His last years weren't good.
A prescient document that I have come back to many times in my own scientific career. It is striking how little those in power now seem to actually understand what was so clear in 1945:
"To create more jobs we must make new and better and cheaper products. We want plenty of new, vigorous enterprises. But new products and processes are not born full-grown. They are founded on new principles and new conceptions which in turn result from basic scientific research. Basic scientific research is scientific capital. Moreover, we cannot any longer depend upon Europe as a major source of this scientific capital. Clearly, more and better scientific research is one essential to the achievement of our goal of full employment.
How do we increase this scientific capital? First, we must have plenty of men and women trained in science, for upon them depends both the creation of new knowledge and its application to practical purposes. Second, we must strength- en the centers of basic research which are principally the colleges, universities, and research institutes. These institutions provide the environment which is most conducive to the creation of new scientific knowledge and least under pressure for immediate, tangible results. With some notable exceptions, most research in industry and in Government involves application of existing scientific knowledge to practical problems. It is only the colleges, universities, and a few research institutes that devote most of their research efforts to expanding the frontiers of knowledge."
and
"Science Is a Proper Concern of Government
It has been basic United States policy that Government should foster the opening of new frontiers. It opened the seas to clipper ships and furnished land for pioneers. Although these frontiers have more or less disappeared, the frontier of science remains. It is in keeping with the American tradition—one which has made the United States great—that new frontiers shall be made accessible for development by all American citizens.
Moreover, since health, well-being, and security are proper concerns of Government, scientific progress is, and must be, of vital interest to Government. Without scientific progress the national health would deteriorate; without scientific progress we could not hope for improvement in our standard of living or for an increased number of jobs for our citizens; and without scientific progress we could not have maintained our liberties against tyranny."
and
"Freedom of Inquiry Must Be Preserved
The publicly and privately supported colleges, universities, and research institutes are the centers of basic research. They are the wellsprings of knowledge and understanding. As long as they are vigorous and healthy and their scientists are free to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, there will be a flow of new scientific knowledge to those who can apply it to practical problems in Government, in industry, or elsewhere."
This is the document that the Trump regime is using for toilet paper now.
[dead]
[flagged]
Generated comments are not allowed on HN. Would you please stop posting these and please stop creating multiple accounts? I'm afraid you've crossed well over the line into abusing HN, and I assume it's not your intent to do so.