Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Government Sponsorship and Secrecy
According to the Edwards reading, the government and military’s interest in developing computing technology rapidly accelerated research and collaboration, but also hindered some of the flow of new information due to the need for wartime secrecy. After the wars ended, there was less of a need for secrecy, but the political will to push research forward also lessened. Vast increases in funding during the wars played an obvious role in increasing research, but more interesting to me was the new infrastructure the government created to promote collaboration between academic, industrial, and military scientists. Hearing about those three very different communities working together was a bit surprising, since I often think of them as being at odds with each other, especially academics with the other two. That might be completely off base, but I was hoping someone with more background could add to the discussion. Now, different companies doing their own research wouldn’t want to share ideas until they have a product to sell, and I imagine the government wouldn’t for the same reasons as during wartime. So that leaves academics, but are universities still leaders in developing new technology? Actually, I feel a bit silly now that I’ve written this - I have no idea how all of this stuff actually happens!
Also, if national security was the reason computer research exploded originally, what is pushing it forward today? Industry has an interest in creating consumer goods, but that seems rather petty in comparison to protecting a country. We hear about amazing projects Google is working on, but it’s interesting to think about how different our technology could be given different political and cultural circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Consider it a good starting point to admit that we often aren't really privy to the kinds of deals and negotiations that occur between these various sectors of the economy, government, and education. However, it behooves us to learn as much as we can, and we are fortunate in that the UCs are a public, state institution subject to a certain amount of mandated transparency (think, for instance, of the furor a few years back over Cal's deal with BP). Your best point, I think, is that the principles of certain deep-pocketed funding sources (e.g. military or industry) may be at odds with what we would like to think of as educational aspirations to free or cheap, open access to information and innovation (for the public good).
ReplyDeleteNational security is still pushing computer research forward. For example, Berkley's AMP labs just received $10 million from a recent Obama initiative to develop algorithms for predictive analytics.
ReplyDelete