Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: spinoffs
Message-ID: <3771@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Apr-84 16:37:07 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.3771
Posted: Thu Apr 19 16:37:07 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Apr-84 16:37:07 EST
References: <12062@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 27

dietz%USC-CSE@USC-ECL.ARPA comments:

   ............................. I still think NASA spending on specific
   space projects is a poor way to foster general technological progress.
   It certainly isn't necesary (Japan spends much less on space, for
   example).  By "basic research" I really meant to include "basic
   development": research intended to produce new materials, technologies,
   etc., such as Japan's MITI sponsored research.  ...

My understanding is that Japan, until quite recently, has spent almost
nothing on basic research or basic development.  Most of their work has
been on production and reliability, with heavy reliance on basic R+D
done elsewhere.  It remains to be seen whether their recent initiatives
in home-grown basic research are going to work; these efforts cannot yet
be cited as evidence for anything.

Venture capital investment is very good at bringing technologies to
market, i.e. tidying up the rough edges and selling it.  It does very
little for making the blasted stuff work in the first place, because
basic R+D is too long-term to be attractive to venture capital.  With
the exception of a few farsighted large corporations, it is hard to find
*anybody* who is willing to sink a substantial amount of money into work
that is really long-term.  A typical manager's idea of "long-term planning"
is two years.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry