The Necessity of Funding Failure

[n2doc]

By Jonah Lehrer September 25, 2011


Joe Nocera had an excellent column in the Times on the pseudo-scandal of Solyndra, the failed solar panel manufacturer that received a $535 million federally guaranteed loan. He notes that, while the Obama Administration may have fast-tracked the deal for political reasons, it’s counterproductive to claim a scandal just because an innovative young company has failed, for many of these companies are bound to fail. Here’s Nocera:

If we could just stop playing gotcha for a second, we might realize that federal loan programs — especially loans for innovative energy technologies — virtually require the government to take risks the private sector won’t take. Indeed, risk-taking is what these programs are all about. Sometimes, the risks pay off. Other times, they don’t. It’s not a taxpayer ripoff if you don’t bat 1.000; on the contrary, a zero failure rate likely means that the program is too risk-averse.

If anything, government investment in science and technology is too afraid of risk, too unwilling to fund innovative projects that can’t get private capital. In fact, there’s good evidence that scientific funding programs with a bigger appetite for risk (and thus a higher tolerance for failure) are also better at producing major breakthroughs.

One way to illustrate the importance of encouraging risk is to compare the research strategies of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – the largest funder of biomedical science in the world — and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), a non-profit set up to “push the boundaries of knowledge.” The NIH evaluates grant proposals in an exceedingly rational manner. A team of experts analyzes and scores each proposal, ensuring that the project is scientifically sound and is supported by plenty of preliminary evidence. Their explicit goal is to not waste taxpayer money — nobody wants to fund a failure.

HHMI, in contrast, is known for supporting avant-garde projects. In fact, it explicitly encourages researchers to “take risks, explore unproven avenues and embrace the unknown — even if it means uncertainty or the chance of failure.” HHMI does this by focusing on individual scientists, not particular experiments. (Instead of requesting a detailed proposal of future research, HHMI asks for an example of past research.) The assumption is that a creative scientist should be able to pursue ideas without having to justify them to a panel of experts. Like Solyndra, these researchers are full of potential. But potential is not a promise.

more
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/the-necessity-of-funding-failure/

[binarysunrise]

1. "the necessity of funding failure"

"the necessity of funding failure" - isn't that our government in a nutshell?

[ljm2002]

2. No. n/t

[txlibdem]

3. The "GubMint" has been funding Coal, Oil and Natural Gas, now up to $72B per year so you are right

Your comment is right on these counts as well:

- bailing out big banks with $700B and then backing them up with $16 TRILLION (with a "T") in almost zero interest unlimited lines of credit

- failing to end funding for the Oil Wars in Iran, Iraq and now Libya -- all in the guise of "fighting terror" (the terror is oil execs fear of losing their multi-million dollar mansions when the oil runs out)

- continuing to pay the salaries of the DOJ when they are NOT indicting and imprisoning the war criminals in the previous US Junta (BushCo, et al).

There's a lot of truth to your post... I haven't even scratched the surface.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. How much does the government give Raytheon?

The shit they sell us all blows up.