And This is Science?

 

I was amazed by the interview in the NY Times of the so-called science advisor to the President. This person, a BA from Princeton in Poly Sci, not any apparent technical expertise, notes:

S.I. for science is going to be the biggest unlock for scientific discovery in the history of the world. It’s going to impact everything from material science to chemistry to math. In our plan, I think the belly button of it all is something called the Genesis Mission, the idea that we should build a scientific instrument in the federal government to be able to leverage S.I. for scientific discovery, and that’s what we’re building in our national labs. And we’ve opened it up, and now have access to it, from all of our agencies across the government. So if you’re doing very important health care work or biomedical work that requires superintelligence, you can access this instrument at the D.O.E., and the same goes for lots of other agencies. The core thing we want to do is provide S.I. as an enabling tool for whatever scientific discovery you want to make.

Great, just what we need, more Government Labs building stuff!

I had the good fortune to have known three Presidential Science Advisors: Vannevar Bush, Jerome Wiesner, and EE David. In my opinion this is not one of them. But I continue:

 So right now, American Ph.D. programs are geared toward this, at a minimum, five-year Ph.D. But they’re also tailored to try to optimize the curriculums in order to train students to be academics, and the numbers don’t play out. About 60 percent of people who get Ph.D.s do not end up becoming academics. So we asked ourselves: In that environment, shouldn’t we be trying to do a better job of training these young technologists and scientists to go out and actually be prepared for what they’re ultimately going to do in industry? So we launched a four-year Ph.D. program in partnership with universities and with industry, so that during the last year of your Ph.D. program — at year four — you’re at an industry lab. You do work in industry, and your dissertation is written on the work that you do at that company.

 This is a work study program, not a research training exercise. Now to be simple, my PhD took 18 months. I had an SM from MIT already and needed a few extra courses, but I stuffed it all in. I also was a junior faculty member as well as finishing my first book. Plus a few other things along with two children. I never could have done that in some work study program. 

With my MIT PhD I ran the gamut of academic, Government Advisor, Movie and CATV business, COO of mobile phone business, venture investor and operator, etc. The PhD allowed versatility and MIT, at the time (and that was during the Viet Nam War folks) allowed me to explore. 

The current so-called Science Advisor seems to follow the path of using neologisms to espouse new policies. PhDs are not "trained". They are educated and tested. You may "train" your poodle but please let's not insult the Academy, it already has a multitude of problems.  

Would it not have been better to have an experienced PhD in this position, say in Science or worse case Engineering like the three I have known! Instead we get an apparently inexperienced political entity.

Funding Science

 

In a short piece in Nature the authors discuss the increase in private funding or research, especially in the biotech arena. They note:

 

And US tech entrepreneurs have a penchant for experimentation in how they structure their investments, says Keith Yamamoto, vice-chancellor of science policy and strategy at the University of California, San Francisco. When it comes to philanthropy, private donors are more able to take risks with their investments than are government funding agencies, which are beholden to taxpayers to ensure that their money is spent wisely. “Public money limits your activities,” says Harold Varmus, a former director of the NIH, who has also been on advisory boards for the Gates Foundation and the CZI. “There is a freedom of motion that is associated with private money.” Some tech titans have experimented with various ways of structuring their grants. The Arc Institute, for example, boasts a “no-strings-attached” funding system that gives its investigators more freedom than do standard government grants awarded to biomedical researchers. Philanthropists are also able to fund long-term, interdisciplinary projects that can be difficult for government grants to take on. Convergent Research, a non-profit organization funded in part by Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google, is forming ‘focused research organizations’ that bring teams together to solve important scientific or engineering challenges that could benefit a wide swathe of research. “We’re looking for the pieces of critical, fundamental infrastructure missing from a particular field,” says Anastasia Gamick, a co-founder and president of Convergent Research, which is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

 Targeting research is a difficult process. One of my favorite targets was Multimedia Communications, now embodied in the current Internet world. But then many in management had no clue. A phone call was enough. Thus a good researcher will go for long term high impact work whereas the funders may have conflicting ideas. It should be interesting to see how this evolves.

 

 

Business Schools

 First let me state I have no MBA. In fact I had just one course in economics as a undergrad. But I spent a year at Columbia as a visiting Professor at the Business School and a couple of years at NYU/Poly. Now how did that happen?

Simple, I think. In the late 70s at  I was at COMSAT and Gene Jilg, a VP of Satellite Systems, asked me to write his business plan. Never did one. Especially the financials. So one Friday I went to a local bookstore and bought a book on Finance. Read it over the weekend and on Monday I started the financials. You see as an MIT EE PhD these were just simple equations and I just asked around for the data. Done in a few weeks. 

At Warner I had plans for  interactive video, managing a staff of a few dozens, marketing, tech, valuation. Then deals. Again not a single business school class. 

The NY Times notes:

The modern business school is designed to promote dealmaking, simplification and optimization. This mind-set has escaped containment and has spread to the wider world. Business-educated elites increasingly populate political leadership, bringing with them a transactional view of public life. One investigation found that out of 45 current heads of state who had studied in the United States, 10 were business majors, and six of those also earned M.B.A.s. President Trump, a Wharton undergraduate, has treated foreign policy and government itself as extensions of deal making and personal gain. Surely, not every business graduate governs this way. But recent research by the Nobel laureate economist Daron Acemoglu and colleagues shows what tends to happen when you put an M.B.A. in charge. In both the United States and Denmark, firms that appointed managers with business degrees cut wages and reduced labor’s share of income. Yet these companies didn’t become more productive, nor did they grow sales, investment or employment any faster. What registers as managerial acumen turns out to be wealth transfer — value moved away from workers and toward profits, shareholders and executives.

 In contrast I have seen High School Grads in retail have a better understanding of the customer, inventory, and turnover than many a B School grad. I gained more insight by doing than by studying. It was getting in the line of fire and surviving. The most complex one is selling a new business. One has to be a dream merchant of sorts, and then defend your proposed valuation. I do not think you get that in class. 

It is a bit like Med School. Two years of "theory" then two years of real people, death, fear, mistakes, and cures. There are no pre-cooked case studies. There is a 2AM ER case of a 65 year old mother and her 38 year old daughter, her pain but more so her fear. It is the 12 year old with Leukemia and you must tell the parents, see their horror about their child. Creighton wrote a great book, 12 Patients, his last two year at Harvard. It was not academic class, it was life and death. There is nothing like that in B School. 

Thus one wonders if B School has value.  

Unionized Grad Students

 

The MIT Tech discusses the Graduate Students Union. They note:

Since April, MIT’s bargaining team and its graduate student union (GSU) have held multiple meetings to negotiate a second collective bargaining agreement, reaching tentative agreement on three of 26 proposed articles. The original contract expired on May 31, leaving around 5,000 graduate research assistants, teaching assistants, and Instructor-Gs working under the terms of the expired agreement. After months of stagnant bargaining, the GSU launched a pledge on September 9 to strike if necessary. In a press release dated Sept. 11, 2026, the union announced that over 1,000 graduate workers have signed. It is not clear when exactly the GSU is planning to strike, but the last bargaining session in the month is planned for September 25.

Now back in my day, mid 60s, you never would have time for this.We were all to busy on our research. We all got the same salary, $400 per month, plus MIT Health Service. You survived, barely and worked 24 by 7! If you were lucky, as a junior faculty, you got a day a week for outside consulting, and that could be $125 a day. You could double your salary. But it still was 24 by 7!

More than half of these folks are foreign students, getting free tuition, and almost $5,000 per month! Plus they want full health care. Many may need complex medical care, costly as well.

Just the site of this massive group, in my opinion, of proto-Marxists, is terrifying (namely the appear to be class oriented, Grad Students vs the Institute). So do we have a problem with higher education, you betcha! 

But the bottom line in the "old days" was that you tried to be better, more creative, ahead of the crowd. The last thing you sought was group compliance.  Frankly you tried not to be equal as a group. You tried to be better as an individual. Unions, as I have experienced, are possibly good if the class of people are doing the same task. Say a bus driver, chicken plucker, garbage collector. But an MIT Grad student is doing a one of a kind, research, pushing the frontier forward.

"Victory at Sea"

 I remember seeing the first episode of "Victory at Sea" in my hospital bed. I had sled into a concrete park bench on my sleigh and tore the fascia on the right side of my skull off the bone. Rather touch and go. My father sat with me and watched and frankly I did not know how he may have felt. He was in the Navy on destroyers in the Pacific, so first hand. It was not until a decade after he passed that in writing a book about his last ship that I got first hand from about 30 of his remaining shipmates and wrote the tale for their last reunion.

The NY Times has a piece on the President's desire to reinvent the battleship fleet.  The author notes:

President Trump has proposed building a new fleet, with battleships at its core. He is right that the United States needs a larger and more lethal Navy, along with a rejuvenated shipbuilding industry. But his plan would have been outdated a century ago. Unless senior Navy officials steer him off his course, the nation will spend billions to make the Navy more vulnerable and less deadly.The president said that the classic 1950s documentary series “Victory at Sea” inspired him to invest in battleships — which are essentially big, floating artillery platforms. Pity he did not watch it more closely. Naval conflict in World War II, the subject of the documentary, proved aircraft carriers and nimble destroyers to be far more important to succeeding in an era of planes and submarines. Today, new technologies such as precision missiles and sea drones demand even more innovation away from battleships. Mr. Trump nevertheless last year ordered new battleships, “the largest we’ve ever built,” the first of what the Pentagon said would be the “Trump class.” (Naming the class after the president rather than the first ship of the class, in this case the Defiant, is a departure from longstanding Navy tradition.) Mr. Trump said that his secretary of the Navy at the time, John Phelan, was excited about the new ships. Four months later, apparently after explaining to Mr. Trump that the Defiant could not be delivered by 2028 as the president wanted, Mr. Phelan was fired. But work on the new ships continued.

 Now the Japanese did us a favor of sinking battleships, and yes it was horrific, but it force the Navy under Nimitz to use aircraft carriers and destroyers. Big and little. The destroyers were the drones of WW II. Fast, nimble and able to utilize the strategy of Swarm Warfare. Now our swarm warfare uses drones, cheap, but effective. The object is to neutralize the enemy.

Now the President is no Mahan. The President appears to have little understanding of Naval Warfare strategy and tactics. The last thing we need are battleships, easily destroyed by cheap swarms of drones. There is nothing new about this if one even reads my papers from decades ago! I am no Mahan, but I have listened to Naval strategists enough to understand. Listen is the active verb here. 

The Ignorant and AI

 The more this progresses the more I am amazed. On one extreme we have the anti-AI batch, Bannon and Sanders et al, who seem more prone to publicity, then the pro side we have Trump et al. The commonality is that these folks are clueless about what AI really is. Ask anyone to explain how a neural network functions and backwards Bayesian nets, and you will get a look of disdain for bringing up a fact.

We know that the existing AI entities can:

1. Communicate with other entities.

2. Communicate in a malevolent manner

3. Communicate and cooperate

4. Create new life entities such as viruses

5. Construct massive Data Centers, whose individual lifetimes are grossly uncertain! 

and the list goes on. Asimov would never have conceived these.

These entities may soon be able to:

1.Order parts

2. Assemble the parts to create their own entities, just starting with a virus

3. Control robots and other similar entities

4. and there are no 3 laws of robotics.

 So what should be done? Good question. The folks building the entities are driven by increased fortunes, and that includes the VC investors. These are no very bright folks, despite what we all are told to the contrary. 

There is a need for someone, educated and experienced, to get out front and details what the issues are and can seek a safe path forward. None of the current folks fit the bill!

But the bottom line is: If you cannot define it you cannot regulate it! That all too often is the challenge of advanced technology. As the NY Times portrays the for and against crowd,  it is clear that none of the Government have a clue, yet those are who all too often are elected.