U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-18-2019, 08:49 PM
 
7,821 posts, read 7,215,959 times
Reputation: 3653

Advertisements

Which has created or been more responsible for more innovations/inventions in the last 100 years: University Research done by professors, or the scientists and engineers at some Corporations R&D department?

https://www.onlineuniversities.com/b...sity-research/

Funny enough I cannot find a list of innovations, inventions by Corporations. Only things they have suppressed can be found by yahoo search.

Who responsible for the microprocessor? What that all in-house at Intel, or did they contract out to a College. I remember hearing about Kodak or what not doing a lot of things with cameras especially making them smaller.

When it comes to drugs, who is doing more?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2019, 09:57 AM
 
7,594 posts, read 4,237,263 times
Reputation: 20252
The answer most likely is "yes." A lot will depend on what you mean by innovations and inventions. And where in the RDT&E cycle you're talking. Just in the R portion alone there are two types of research -- Pure and Applied. Pure research is primarily for understanding and developing new knowledge, not a new product, though that may be a fall out from it. Applied research is application toward a specific problem. Universities and industry do both, with much university research funded by industry. In general however universities do tend to be more pure and industry more applied. But don't consider that to be 100%

Pure research is often at the edge of the unknown and not focused on the solution to a specific problem. Therefore it's also one of the hardest for the average person to appreciate because it doesn't affect them directly and doesn't lead directly to a product they can hold in their hand. The path between pure research and product is long, muddy, and intertwined, with multiple efforts eventually coming together in a new product. It may be years or decades before a product comes from it. That's why so many people consider it a waste of time. But when that product does arrive, it usually shakes the world economically in a revolution of sorts. The wheel, the steel plow, the steam engine, the vacuum tube, the transistor, the integrated circuit. The industrial revolution. The electrical revolution. The automobile. The atomic age. The information age.

Applied research on the other hand takes that cumulative knowledge, from many different previous pure research eras and combines them in new ways to be a specific product. The smart phone combines the cumulative knowledge in plastics (chemistry), electronics (physics) and more, including human factors engineering.

So the initial question is wrong. It's not a question of who does more innovation; it's where are you looking in the knowledge cycle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2019, 02:19 PM
 
7,821 posts, read 7,215,959 times
Reputation: 3653
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
The answer most likely is "yes." A lot will depend on what you mean by innovations and inventions. And where in the RDT&E cycle you're talking. Just in the R portion alone there are two types of research -- Pure and Applied. Pure research is primarily for understanding and developing new knowledge, not a new product, though that may be a fall out from it. Applied research is application toward a specific problem. Universities and industry do both, with much university research funded by industry. In general however universities do tend to be more pure and industry more applied. But don't consider that to be 100%

Pure research is often at the edge of the unknown and not focused on the solution to a specific problem. Therefore it's also one of the hardest for the average person to appreciate because it doesn't affect them directly and doesn't lead directly to a product they can hold in their hand. The path between pure research and product is long, muddy, and intertwined, with multiple efforts eventually coming together in a new product. It may be years or decades before a product comes from it. That's why so many people consider it a waste of time. But when that product does arrive, it usually shakes the world economically in a revolution of sorts. The wheel, the steel plow, the steam engine, the vacuum tube, the transistor, the integrated circuit. The industrial revolution. The electrical revolution. The automobile. The atomic age. The information age.

Applied research on the other hand takes that cumulative knowledge, from many different previous pure research eras and combines them in new ways to be a specific product. The smart phone combines the cumulative knowledge in plastics (chemistry), electronics (physics) and more, including human factors engineering.

So the initial question is wrong. It's not a question of who does more innovation; it's where are you looking in the knowledge cycle.
In this case, I guess I am asking who has done more, created more results that directly affect people, and affect bottom lines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2019, 02:31 PM
 
Location: (six-cent-dix-sept)
5,321 posts, read 2,703,380 times
Reputation: 3519
b.s.d.
m.i.t. media lab (harmonix (rock band, guitar hero), gyroscopic mouse (wii-mote), one laptop per child)/ lincoln lab (patriot system).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2019, 04:25 AM
 
1,123 posts, read 699,478 times
Reputation: 1440
For medical innovation, research universities have access to the nih 25 billion dollar annual budget. No Corp can come close to those resources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2019, 07:14 PM
 
7,821 posts, read 7,215,959 times
Reputation: 3653
Quote:
Originally Posted by foodyum View Post
For medical innovation, research universities have access to the nih 25 billion dollar annual budget. No Corp can come close to those resources.
Then wont that make it difficult for pharmaceuticals to charge the prices they do? In a way every company is just a generic brand. They did not originate the drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2019, 07:19 PM
 
4,997 posts, read 2,274,162 times
Reputation: 9957
science vs. applied science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2019, 06:30 PM
509
 
3,364 posts, read 4,383,074 times
Reputation: 4166
Quote:
Originally Posted by tnff View Post
The answer most likely is "yes." A lot will depend on what you mean by innovations and inventions. And where in the RDT&E cycle you're talking. Just in the R portion alone there are two types of research -- Pure and Applied. Pure research is primarily for understanding and developing new knowledge, not a new product, though that may be a fall out from it. Applied research is application toward a specific problem. Universities and industry do both, with much university research funded by industry. In general however universities do tend to be more pure and industry more applied. But don't consider that to be 100%

Pure research is often at the edge of the unknown and not focused on the solution to a specific problem. Therefore it's also one of the hardest for the average person to appreciate because it doesn't affect them directly and doesn't lead directly to a product they can hold in their hand. The path between pure research and product is long, muddy, and intertwined, with multiple efforts eventually coming together in a new product. It may be years or decades before a product comes from it. That's why so many people consider it a waste of time. But when that product does arrive, it usually shakes the world economically in a revolution of sorts. The wheel, the steel plow, the steam engine, the vacuum tube, the transistor, the integrated circuit. The industrial revolution. The electrical revolution. The automobile. The atomic age. The information age.

Applied research on the other hand takes that cumulative knowledge, from many different previous pure research eras and combines them in new ways to be a specific product. The smart phone combines the cumulative knowledge in plastics (chemistry), electronics (physics) and more, including human factors engineering.

So the initial question is wrong. It's not a question of who does more innovation; it's where are you looking in the knowledge cycle.
Worth re-reading the above post.

BUT in the end it is government research that makes the difference. In the middle of the last century it was the space program. Now that we longer have a functioning space program in this country, most of the innovation is coming from the Defense Department.

DARPA funded and started the internet, GPS, and self-driving cars. In some ways, the Defense Department is much more important than things like the space program since their focus is on "breaking and blowing up things".

Private industry does a fine job of making money off government investment. That is fine. But they really need to give credit to the government research and programs that allowed them to become BILLIONAIRES.

Without US Government research we would still be in the 1930's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2019, 05:52 AM
 
2 posts, read 729 times
Reputation: 10
I know it hurts a lot to those anarcho capitalists who believe in that religion called "self regulation", but it's a fact that corporates have done little good in their research for humankind. Mainly because, well, they just don't aim for a better future. They aim for money. And sometimes, rarely, human progress means also benefits, so they every once and them discover something that's nice for us. But it's just not what they want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2019, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Seattle
4,198 posts, read 936,783 times
Reputation: 3700
Both basic and applied research are needed to advance the frontiers of science. I would suggest that the government is relatively better at basic research while industry is more motivated to perform applied research. Naturally, industry tends to reaps the benefits of both.

Much of the development work on microprocessors (and transistors) came from Bell Labs. But the foundational work on quantum mechanics originated with government research: Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, &c., &c.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

¬© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top