Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!rex!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!wilbur.nas.nasa.gov!eugene
From: eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.visualization
Subject: Re: Out of the lab, into the classroom
Keywords: reuse fabulous
Message-ID: <1991Apr5.212903.8978@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 5 Apr 91 21:29:03 GMT
References: <1991Apr2.202227.13796@agate.berkeley.edu> <18252@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <218@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Reply-To: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 48

In article <218@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes:
>This was probably one of the sadest effects of the Marketing of the
>AI field.  I really hope it does'nt do diservice to the Visualization
>field.  But, if I remember correctly, one of the major reasons for
>such behavior (at least on the AI side) was that the government would
>not fund boring technology.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Do you mean the US government or the Japanese (jp) government?
I sought funding in the early 1980s for computer science research
for the above two fields and more (with many trips between coasts).
Part of the problem lies with the entrenched funding structures of the
various basic sciences fields.  True: few people want to fund basic AI
research.  DARPA is one US agency which has (with some what remote
ties to actual military field use).  ARPA also once funded the original
work in computer graphics.  But why should any government be responsible
for funding research?  Why not industry, etc.? [Playing devil's adovcate
here.]

The basic infrastructure of science in the US tends to fund large projects
(Big Science).  Examples include: particle accelerators, telescopes,
space missions, and recently supercomputers and the idea we might completely
map a human gene.  Of late these projects are multi-$1B.

One thrust says "We must do science projects which compete with these!"
ICOT is one example of this with FGCS (which never really took on
computer graphics). [Fifth Gen. Comp. Syst.]  But another thrust says,
"We must stay small."  The real problem comes with interdisciplinary
efforts like computers which falls between the traditional cracks of
science like physics and biology.  A lack of critical mass to fund the
research in the types of tools used by the "fundamental sciences"
causes a "Naw, you fund this."  "No after you." round robin.  This is why
I  had a fellow on my panel (Greg Rau) who would have a title no shorter
than "Stable Isotope Bio geo chemist."  AI and visualization and other
fields are going to be like this as well.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
  On a long drive between Aspen and Denver on I70:
	..."Are you a chemist?"
	"No, not really."
	"Are you a biologist?"
	"No, not really."....
	"Are you are geologist?"
	"No not really, my PhD is really in forestry, but I know
	nothing about forestry."
	.... (30 minutes on a rainy I70) passes.
	"Yes I can see you ARE a Stable Isotope BioGeochemist..."