Is it possible to make science as marketable as Engineering?

In summary: I don't think so.The trouble with capitalism is that what is most marketable is generally the least common denominator, not the most important branch of science. Thus we see immense spending on cancer research, which, ironically, probably retards progress in fighting cancer relative to investing in more fundamental science.Not that the rooskies or other pinkos had it better, but it's a fantasy to suggest that the market does a particularly good job of optimizing for the long term.Capitalism is supposed to optimize for the long term, but it often doesn't.Just look at disasters created in China and Russia when the state decided what is marketable and what isn't. Even now, when China no longer has a
  • #36
Grands said:
The problem is that Science, unless it is linked with engineering, and remain on his own, do not give the possibility to create goods or services, only in few cases, for example the Einstein's relativity theory makes GPS to works with great precision, but I can't so so many application that can create lot of job opportunities.
In what way do you believe that GPS systems are not linked to engineering? Do you understand that ALL of modern electronics is based on Quantum Mechanics "linked to engineering" ?
 
  • Like
Likes Grands
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
phinds said:
In what way do you believe that GPS systems are not linked to engineering? Do you understand that ALL of modern electronics is based on Quantum Mechanics "linked to engineering" ?
It's a rare case where a company that want to create a GPS need a physicists that studied the relativity theory.
It's implied that everything else that makes the GPS to work is made by engineers, from the case to the electronic circuits.
I never said that GPS do not need engineers.
 
  • #38
Grands said:
It's a rare case where a company that want to create a GPS need a physicists that studied the relativity theory.
It's implied that everything else that makes the GPS to work is made by engineers, from the case to the electronic circuits.
I never said that GPS do not need engineers.
A reasonable point. I was addressing a specific aspect of your post and not your more broad question of creating a situation where scientists get jobs. I still think the market does a good job.
 
  • Like
Likes ISamson
  • #39
Grands said:
I don't think that there is a relationship between the job opportunity the race to moon made and the lack fo the "invisible hand".
In my opinion still today Russian and Cina does not have a completely free trade.

In some cases the State promotes people that want to study engineering, giving them scholarships or financial help, so it encourage people to do it, but don't oblige no one in a explicit way.

The problem is that Science, unless it is linked with engineering, and remain on his own, do not give the possibility to create goods or services, only in few cases, for example the Einstein's relativity theory makes GPS to works with great precision, but I can't so so many application that can create lot of job opportunities.
phinds said:
A reasonable point. I was addressing a specific aspect of your post and not your more broad question of creating a situation where scientists get jobs. I still think the market does a good job.
The point intended was missed. Governments can be clients, too, just as other companies and ordinary citizens and other organized groups. When the governments decide that "we need more engineers and people to learn more in sciences", and then supplies funding to schools, and tells people that "we need more people to become scientists and engineers", do you then believe no motivated students will respond?

I earlier mentioned the "space-race". That was real. Suddenly many young people were attracted to Mathematics, Technology, Sciences, and Engineering, even if some of the encouragement to do so came from their parents. That was marketing for S.T.E.M, and it worked.
 
  • #40
symbolipoint said:
I earlier mentioned the "space-race". That was real. Suddenly many young people were attracted to Mathematics, Technology, Sciences, and Engineering, even if some of the encouragement to do so came from their parents. That was marketing for S.T.E.M, and it worked.
Really?
Wow!
I didn't know that, it was a kind of propaganda ?
In my opinion, beside this, the arriving of the man on the moon was one of the greatest thing humanity did.

Anyway, why the parents used to encourage people to study STEM?
I know plenty of parents that discourage or do not give to their son the possibility to study physics or math.
 
  • Like
Likes ISamson
  • #41
Grands said:
Really?
Wow!
I didn't know that, it was a kind of propaganda ?
In my opinion, beside this, the arriving of the man on the moon was one of the greatest thing humanity did.

Anyway, why the parents used to encourage people to study STEM?
I know plenty of parents that discourage or do not give to their son the possibility to study physics or math.
Far less propaganda than actual selling or asking or encouragement.

Putting a man-on-the-moon was mostly not the point. This was just one goal or objective. Technological advancement and applying it was the basic goal. Men actually reaching and making contact was just one example but mostly an interesting or fascinating spectacle.

Why would parents encourage their children to study sciences, mathematics, or engineering, you ask? Get serious!
 
  • #42
Grands said:
I didn't know that, it was a kind of propaganda ?
Yes. It was started entirely as a response to the Russian's Sputnik in the cold war. Once it got started, the American public embraced it wholeheartedly, partly because of the brilliant marketing by NASA, putting the "All American" astronauts and their wives on the cover of POST magazine every now and then. (The magazine was happy to oblige since it boosted ratings).
 
  • Like
Likes symbolipoint
  • #43
phinds, #42 very well-said.
 

Similar threads

Replies
37
Views
948
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
119
Views
10K
Replies
58
Views
6K
Back
Top