B.1: Some Issues in R&D
user profile
Octaveoctave
 February 21 2025
more_horiz

    Assorted Topics in Research and Development

    B: R&D Problems

    Research and Development, or R&D, is not perfect. In some organizations and during some time periods it has performed markedly better than at other instances in other locations. Why is this?

    The answer probably lies in the design of our R&D institutions. It might be worthwhile to try to identify some of the defects that are common in R&D entities. 

    This subject is so vast that we cannot do an exhaustive study here. But a few examples of problems in R&D might be illustrative.

    B.1: Some Issues in R&D

    The ways in which R&D is managed and funded might provide clues about how research and development efforts can go off the rails. Bureaucratic rules and meddling can also be toxic to R&D efforts. Many organizations purposely try to isolate their R&D branches from the rest of the organization's activities for this very reason. Nevertheless, it is a rare R&D entity that is not eventually subject to all kinds of deterioration and rot. 

    B.1.1: How Can Managers and Funding Officers Impede Progress?

    Why should this be true? Why are the scientists and technical people in funding organizations and in managerial positions often seen as an impediment to R&D productivity?[1]

    There are probably numerous possible reasons for this. One is that most funding organizations are unable or unwilling to hire people who have demonstrated or experienced personal success with technical innovation. Once someone has excelled in this pursuit, they are unlikely to give it up readily and willingly.[2] 

    Another potential reason is that it is difficult for people who have not themselves innovated to recognize who is potentially productive, and who is less likely to be productive in R and D. Standard metrics of R and D productivity like citations and numbers of publications are more than slightly flawed.[3] 

    The average person cannot really tell who is good, and who is not, and who might have potential. They do not know how to measure or determine the important skills that allow, or could allow, someone to be productive.[4] They also often cannot spot blatant fraud.

    As an example of how standard and easy metrics of "talent" can be flawed, senior physics faculty report that their best, most productive and successful students in R&D are not always those who scored highest on the standardized tests, like the SAT and the GRE. These exams roughly measure IQ, but as Einstein said, creativity or imagination is more important than knowledge (or the ability to absorb knowledge swiftly, which roughly equates to IQ).

    In addition, it is not easy to measure creativity, or an even more valuable factor, assiduousness. Since R&D is about failing over and over and over, if a person does not have uncommon drive and persistence, they will not be productive.

    Another issue is jealousy, resentment, and/or envy. Often the least productive, least capable people are found staffing funding agencies and taking managerial positions, with some notable exceptions. When these incompetents see their colleagues advancing, accomplishing things and garnering recognition and glory, it irks them. It is a very human reaction to lash out at those who they perceive to be more successful than them. 

    In addition, there is a common phenomenon in STEM where people tend to fall in love with their own ideas. And even if these ideas stand very little chance of succeeding, the originator of an idea has a propensity to promote it over all others. This can become a problem when the originators wedded to failing ideas are the funding officers and managers. Many promising lines of investigation can be discarded or whither away while resources are wasted on failing ideas the funding officers and management are overly attached to for various irrational reasons.

    There are undoubtedly many other reasons why funding officers and supervisors can mismanage the projects under their purview. But this handful of observations suggests that this situation is not as uncommon as one might hope.

    B.1.2: Influence of Bureaucracies on R&D

    Most R&D entities, at least of a reasonable size, come along with a fair amount of bureaucracy. This is true of corporate R&D and government R&D. It has become increasingly true of academic R&D. 

    Therefore, it is important that if an R&D organization is to function efficiently, that the bureaucracy not interfere with the R&D activity very much, if at all. For example, meetings are just a waste of time, in most cases. Meetings should be minimized at all costs.

    There are many other common features of  bureaucracies and the attendant embedded and presumed hierarchies that are incompatible with R&D. For example, often the biggest breakthroughs come from the most junior R&D staff. However this upsets the "apple cart" of expectations in a hierarchical bureaucracy. It is commonly assumed that all of the progress and the rewards should be associated with the most senior people in any organization, not the most junior. Even if it is not reality, the bureaucracy frequently tries to dictate this, which can be corrosive. 

    Anyone who is perceived to not be properly respecting the hierarchy (and that includes both official and unofficial hierarchies), can be branded as insubordinate, seditious or worse. For example, imagine that at some R&D organization, a supervisor is about to publish a spurious result. And suppose that this error is pointed out by someone who is not a supervisor. 

    Although this is the proper action to take in a scientific context, that is, to correct mistakes, this can cause no end of trouble. This is because in a standard hierarchy, the boss or supervisor is assumed to be correct, even when they are obviously incorrect. No one is allowed to question this assumption. Exposing this reality can create a firestorm of repercussions.  

    The "supposedly higher status" individuals like bosses and supervisors can be embarrassed and/or surprised.[7] These people are often endowed with effectively infinite power in organizations, or have seized this power for themselves. Contradicting these people can invite tremendous retribution, even when they are wrong, or maybe more accurately, particularly when they are in the wrong. 

    Other problems can arise from an employee showing too much integrity when there is misbehavior the organization and the managers want to cover up. This "challenge to authority" can paint a target on the backs of these overly ethical employees. They are effectively branded as troublemakers, or traitors.[8]

    Still more difficulties can be due to an employee, who is paid to innovate, producing too much innovation, or the "wrong kind" of innovation. Being too productive, or producing undesirable results can invite trouble.[9]

    If an R&D "worker bee" "shows up" or overshadows a "favored and protected" colleague, issues can surface.[10] The people who get in trouble are the productive workers, not the unproductive workers, as ridiculous and contradictory as that might sound.[11]

    In general, a heavy-handed bureaucracy in an R&D organization that taxes its productive talent with all sorts of ridiculous rules and requirements and "busywork" and produces a toxic environment will soon start to experience a productivity decay. This can become a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop, leading to complete stultification and irrelevance. The best people leave in successive waves, leaving behind a residue of self-congratulatory incompetents who only do "R&D theatre" or "cargo cult science". They go through the motions, but nothing of value is ever produced.[12]

    B.1.3: Decay and Erosion of Quality

    As one surveys the current condition of research and development in the US, some issues become apparent. For example, former Vice Chairman of the US Department of Defense Joint Chiefs of Staff General John E. Hyten has expressed concerns about the current unproductive state of US military R&D. 

    Also, a recent publication speculated that the apparent ongoing decrease in R&D quality is associated with the incompetence of the people being attracted to the field.[13][14]

    In addition, there seems to be a contagion of fraudulent activity in R&D in recent years.[15]

    Woke ideology, including DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion), has not spared R&D. It has been associated with aggressive demands for mediocrity, and the development of anti-meritocratic systems throughout STEM. Many of the most talented are discouraged from pursuing a career in STEM by a variety of woke-related methods.

    In addition, woke ideology has as one of its prominent features a substantial amount of wasted resources on unproductive nonsensical woke programs and agendas. These are of such poor quality that they appear to be almost intentional self-parodies. 

    Another factor is the emergence of a generally complacent, cavalier, unproductive and counter-competitive set of attitudes. In the last few decades, the Cold War ended. There has also been a gradual deindustrialization of the US during the same period. 

    After these events, it seemed like most technical efforts were devoted towards trivial matters, at best. Excellence and deep thoughts were set aside to refine web pages and add features to browsers. 

    Merit and standards were discarded as "unfair". Dedication and talent and competition were frowned upon in an "everyone gets a trophy" culture. Prestigious positions that were previously awarded based on performance and excellence are given to those who managed to manipulate the system into giving them an undeserved reward. This is almost akin to the results of a corrupt popularity contest. Substance became a secondary or tertiary or quaternary concern. Status was conferred like a prize upon those who had enough brownie points in a kind of "Intersectionality and Victimhood Contest". Social Justice Warriors were everywhere, virtue signaling. Only people who were unable to perform in a specific job were deemed "worthy" of holding that job.[16]

    B.1.4: Notes

    [1] Of course, nontechnical people can occupy these positions. It is a rare nontechnical person who can execute the demands of these positions with aplomb, but they do exist. 

    However, in most cases, technical people are chosen for these jobs. It is probably felt that they will be able to understand the R&D activity going on better, and therefore will be able to make better decisions. Unfortunately, this is often not the case.

    [2] Einstein even opined on this topic. The experience of innovation and contributing to STEM efforts is so heady that the person involved will do almost anything to return to it, again and again. They will forgo salaries and other resources to continue to follow this enticing, exciting, fruitful and personally rewarding path.

    [3] A notable feature of modern R&D is the creation of immense tomes and volumes of documents that essentially no one reads. In many cases,  probably no one can read this material. Most papers are never cited one time, not even by their authors. 

    [4] "You can't expect the sheep to respect the best and the brightest. They don't know the difference, really. The vast majority of them [humans] do not possess the ability to judge who is and who isn't a really good scientist. That is the main problem with science, in this century.

    Science is being judged by people, [and] funding is being done by people, who don't understand it." -- Nobel Prizewinner Kary Mullis

    There are many examples in the history of science of this phenomenon.[5]

    [5] Einstein, one of the most fabled scientists of the last century or so, was misjudged over and over during his life.

    To start with, Einstein began speaking late. This is such a common trait of high-IQ individuals that it is now called 'the Einstein Syndrome'. This condition was so marked in Einstein's case that his parents feared that little Albert was retarded, according to his younger sister Maja. 

    As another example, Einstein's teachers and professors were not very impressed by him. Einstein was enrolled in a college program towards a teaching certificate in mathematics and physics at ETH in Zurich. There were 11 students in Einstein's class. Of these, only 5 made it to the final year. Einstein's graduating score was 4th out of these 5 students. He obtained the lowest passing grade. That is, Einstein was at the absolute bottom of his graduating class. All the other graduates were offered teaching assistantships, but not Albert because of his poor performance.

    Here is another evaluation of Einstein's performance in higher education:

    "If Einstein were reincarnated as a graduate student now, it seems unlikely that he would complete a PhD." -- Dudley Herschbach, 'Einstein as a Student', Chapter 15 in 'Einstein for the 21st Century', P. L. Galison, G. Holton and S. S. Schweber, Princeton University Press, 2008

    Still one more telling comment comes from the famous professor Hermann Minkowski who taught Einstein at Zurich's ETH. Commenting on Einstein's contributions, Minkowski opined;

    “It came as a tremendous surprise, for in his student days Einstein had been a lazy dog…I really would not believe him capable of it.” -- Hermann Minkowski when he learned of Einstein's work on relativity in 1905.

    When Einstein submitted his 1905 special relativity paper as a potential PhD thesis, the faculty at the University of Zurich rejected it.

    Later, Einstein struggled for several years to find paid employment after graduation. He did some tutoring, but eventually Einstein worked for Dr. Friedrich Haller at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern. At first Haller rejected Einstein as unqualified for the position, and it took quite a bit of effort from Einstein's friends with political connections to get Einstein reconsidered.

    Einstein held a lowly third class patent examiner position for years. Einstein's position at the patent office was also temporary for more than 2 years. Others were immediately hired as 2nd class patent examiners and made permanent employees much more rapidly.

    Seven years later, in 1909, Einstein resigned from his patent office job to take a chaired faculty position as a professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Zurich. His supervisor at the patent office was disappointed since it was felt that if Einstein just kept working steadily, he might eventually be promoted to be a first class patent examiner. It was mentioned that it was even possible that Einstein could at some point take over the entire patent examining office.

    This sort of evaluation is so beneath someone like Einstein that it is difficult to know what to say about it.[6] 

    [6] Another striking observation arises from a conversation with several "esteemed" philosophy professors of some note, who will remain nameless here. They opined that it was a tragic shame that Sir Isaac Newton had wasted all that time studying chemistry and gravity and motion and calculus. Newton had shown some promise in philosophy, they thought, in some of his writings. They felt that if Newton had just ignored all that "worthless boring BS" about science and math, that only morons like STEM people were interested in, that Newton might have really made a name for himself.

    This conversation was so staggeringly ignorant, arrogant and stupid as to be almost beyond belief. 

    [7] Remember the cardinal rule for success in business is that one should never surprise their boss. However, it is probably even more important not to embarrass the boss.

    Many if not most managers of R&D activity are either unfamiliar with R&D and/or are failed R&D investigators. They often resent the productive staff they are nominally supervising. They might be envious and have feelings of jealousy. 

    They are often confused by what is going on around them, since they are unable to understand the work they think they should be controlling. However, they cannot admit this because of their egos. Many suffer from "imposter syndrome". 

    This kind of situation can lead to toxic environments, very easily.

    [8] The well-known Richard Feynman story about the Challenger Disaster on January 28th, 1986 provides an interesting data point on this issue. An examination of this situation reveals that the NASA managers silenced the engineers who knew about the O-ring problem and warned about it, repeatedly. However, the managers had effectively infinite power. Therefore, no one dared to point out that the managers had screwed up, including Astronaut Sally Ride and General Donald J. Kutyna and the engineers. But Feynman was old and an emeritus professor and dying from cancer. So it was safe to leak the story to Feynman and have him tell it on camera at a press conference. It would have been too dangerous for anyone else to do it, because of the power of the managers in the NASA bureaucracy.

    [9] The phrase "a prophet has no honor in his own country" has its origins in the Bible, in Mark 6:4. It is somewhat akin to the aphorism that "faraway fields look greener", a statement often attributed to publisher Robert J. Collier. It is also similar to the well-known proverb, "familiarity breeds contempt."

    In an R&D context, these sentiments are quite readily observable. Often investigators in a certain organization are treated with disdain, scorn, or indifference. At a very minimum, they are usually underappreciated. 

    [10] In many R&D organizations, there are certain "investigators" who do not do any investigating. Perhaps they are actually unable to do any investigating. However, often the management favors these people, possibly because of personal relationships or because these nonfunctional "nonplayer characters" (NPCs) do not create any "extra work" for the managers since these NPCs are inactive. Or maybe these NPCs are favored since they never challenge the managers in any possible way, so they seem "nicer" and "better".

    Anything that casts these "RIP" (Retired In Place) people in a negative light can draw the ire of their protectors, the managers.

    [11] Sometimes buyouts are offered in an organizational downsizing. For the most part,  those who take them are the most productive people an objective observer might want to retain. The entity is then left with the 'dregs' who cannot easily get another position. 

    However, the decision makers might not recognize this at the time. This is because they are often unaware of what is going on in their own organizations, or are in denial, as has already been discussed.

    [12] If things in an R&D organization get to a certain stage, anyone daring to produce something of value might very well be punished for this act of nonconformance or "treason". 

    A motivated self-starter showing initiative can frequently be characterized as disloyal, rebellious or mutinous. This is particularly true in the case of insecure managers who crave control and feel inadequate.

    [13] Self-Selection and the Diminishing Returns of Research

    https://econ.ntu.edu.tw/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/macro_1130523.pdf

    Authors: Lorenz K.F. Ekerdt and Kai-Jie Wu, May 2024

    [14] Another recent example of a similar sort of recruiting competence collapse was observed in the US military. When standards were lowered, it suddenly became more and more difficult to meet enlistment quotas. Even the service academies, where admissions had historically been highly sought-after, began to have increasingly more trouble recruiting the next generation of officers.

    Some of the prestige of these positions is associated with the competition to gain admittance. Once the standards are reduced, the prestige evaporates, and people are less willing to seek entry. And this creates a negative feedback loop, so things get progressively worse.

    To paraphrase a well-known joke, people only want to belong to selective groups that refuse to admit them. There is a sort of cachet or an aura that surrounds a club, organization or category that is "picky".

    [15] Why Science Fraud Goes Deeper Than the Stanford Scandal...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mWwXO_guHk

    Learn about high-profile cases of scientific fraud, its prevalence, and its impact on academia. Discover situational pressures and solutions while exploring the quest for research integrity. It includes coverage of Diederik Stapel in the Netherlands, Woo Suk Hwang in Korea, and Marc Tessier-Lavigne, the president of Stanford University who stepped down in 2023.  A must-watch for scientists and curious minds.

    -'Science Fictions' book, Stuart Ritchie

    - anonymous surveys show 2% of scientists admit to personal fraud, and 14% say that they know of other fraudulent scientists

    [16] In many cases, what we have now are a cadre of 'cosplaying' scientists and mathematicians, vacuously going through the motions. They are effectively engaging in a sort of STEM theatre. Paraphrasing a remark of UK commentator and comedian Konstantin Kisin, "We have been imitating the things that got us here, instead of actually doing them, similar to 'cargo cults' in the South Pacific after WWII".

    There is a famous aphorism by Aristotle:

    “Those who know, do. Those that understand, teach.”

    This was altered somewhat by George Bernard Shaw for his 1905 play "Man and Superman" to malign teachers.

    Historically, the related precept that was followed was "Those who can, do". Now it seems that this apothegm has been replaced by "Those who cannot, pretend". 

    However things seem to be even worse currently.  This is because the current situation might be more accurately described as, "Those who pretend are promoted into positions of power. They get to decide who is allowed to make any attempts, or even what is permitted to be attempted".

    #r&d problems
    Filter By: