My economics knowledge is not sophisticated enough to critique the argument here, but I can say a few things as a scientist.
My degree is in theoretical physics, and there I can tell you that there is no shortage of readily attackable problems, many of which are likely to lead to significant advancements. Few people work on them, though, as incentives punish researchers so harshly, that (famously) many (even fairly recent) big-name superstars and Nobel prize winners would be denied tenure in today's environment. Many would not be accepted into even middling grad schools!
That disturbs me a lot, since in very difficult, high-impact fields like physics, the output of high-performers totally dominates everything.
Unfortunately, despite claims to the contrary, there is no non-applied physics research to speak of in industry, and certainly no theoretical physics research. So I see a definite slowdown in discoveries here, with a cause that's fairly obvious to me.
can you elaborate on the incentives you mention? it seems to me like a readily-attackable, significant problem is ideal for a tenure-seeking researcher
My economics knowledge is not sophisticated enough to critique the argument here, but I can say a few things as a scientist.
My degree is in theoretical physics, and there I can tell you that there is no shortage of readily attackable problems, many of which are likely to lead to significant advancements. Few people work on them, though, as incentives punish researchers so harshly, that (famously) many (even fairly recent) big-name superstars and Nobel prize winners would be denied tenure in today's environment. Many would not be accepted into even middling grad schools!
That disturbs me a lot, since in very difficult, high-impact fields like physics, the output of high-performers totally dominates everything.
Unfortunately, despite claims to the contrary, there is no non-applied physics research to speak of in industry, and certainly no theoretical physics research. So I see a definite slowdown in discoveries here, with a cause that's fairly obvious to me.
can you elaborate on the incentives you mention? it seems to me like a readily-attackable, significant problem is ideal for a tenure-seeking researcher