Slashdot Mirror
New Russian Science City Modeled On Silicon Valley
Hugh Pickens writes "Russia's rich scientific traditions and poor record of converting ideas into marketable products are both undisputed, cited as causes for the Soviet collapse and crippling dependence on mining and petroleum. Now the NY Times reports that the Russian government, hoping to diversify its economy away from oil, is building the first new scientific city since the collapse of the Soviet Union modeled, improbably, on Silicon Valley and jokingly referred to as Cupertino-2. 'The whole country needs some sort of breakthrough,' says Viktor F. Vekselberg, the Russian business oligarch appointed co-director of the project. 'The founding of the innovation city, in form and substance, could be a launching pad for the country as a whole.' The new town is intended to advance five scientific priorities — communications, biomedicine, space, nuclear power, and energy conservation — and to encourage cross-fertilization among disciplines. Property will not be owned, but rented, and the government will offer grants for scientists who struggle to find private financing. Once developed, the city is intended to incubate scientific ideas using generous tax holidays and government grants until the start-ups can become profitable companies. Its backers in government and the private sector describe it as an effort to blend the Soviet tradition of forming scientific towns with Western models of encouraging technology ventures around universities. 'In California, the climate is beautiful and they don't have the ridiculous problems of Russia,' says Andrey Shtorkh, publicist for the new venture, adding that to compete, Russia will form a place apart for scientists. 'They should be isolated from our reality.'"
... unless they pack it into one giant building and call it an arcology.
Though I couldn't link to it now, several weeks ago I read an analysis of this plan that was rather pessimistic. Earlier Russian scientific communities were, for all the lip service paid to science, really dedicated to furthering atomic weaponry. There was never a great diversity of scientific exploration going on within them, and Russia thus has no experience with establishing communities that can actually create profitable technologies that will boost the country's economy.
Science is one thing that if done right under socialism works best. I definitely do not promote a Socialist or Communist political environment as being overall good/bad/otherwise, merely that science does not have definite returns, and if it does, the timeframe is very rarely visible/correct on prediction.
This means that generally there is too much risk for a commercial enterprise to indefinitely fund research into something that may or may not provide payoffs, and if it does, perhaps not into their current vehicles. I.e. fusion power may be discovered by a deep sea mining company, meaning that they would need to form a completely new company and structure.
If science is a socialist thing, then it is about the research and the ability to do something, rather than the added complexity of having what you find to be applicable to your sponsor. This will definitely be an interesting space.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Was never built. It grew.
Yeah, it's interesting how much that's true even in the mainly capitalist US. The most significant private-sector research was at quasi-governmental regulated monopolies, like the heydey of Bell Labs. Most research these days ends up being funded by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, or similar government body. Certainly most fundamental research is: I don't know of any significant physics research that's come out of the private sector since the Bell Labs days.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Personally, I think there need to realistically be three things, in proper order
These three conspire to attract rich people and nerds as the article states. That SUN (Stanford University Network), HP and Google are directly from Stanford, and that Oracle got it's start as a government project are quite good examples.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Specifically, I'm referring to your argument that "Science is one thing that if done right under socialism works best."
Under capitalism, science is often bent to the needs of the patron/employer/investor.
Under socialism, science is often bent to the political needs of the "people" as interpreted and enforced by the government.
Neither case must necessarily lead to a poor outcome. However, it's naive to think science can be completely unfettered from the society that supports it. All forms of government and economy concentrate power into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Those few then use that power to shape the actions of others to suit their own needs and beliefs.
Gloss: Lysenko was the director of the Lenin All-Union Institute of Agricultural Sciences, who decreed as a matter of state ideology (among other bizarre rubbish) that desirable traits in plants were not heritable, but instead could only spread through grafts and nongenetic methods. In short, he was a Lamarckian who could ruin a scientist's career, or worse, for daring question the validity of official state science.
Under Lysenko, agricultural science in the USSR was, from the late 1920s until 1964, based on ideology rather than the scientific method, and this led to uncounted misery for Soviet citizens due to massively underperforming or failed crops.
Wikipedia has a decent article about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
"NO" Says the man in Washington, "It belongs to the poor."
"NO" Says the man in the Vatican, "It belongs to God."
"NO" Says the man in Moscow, "It belongs to everyone."
I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...
Rapture!
This will be another manner, in which government money will be pumped into the pockets of the government officials.
It has been proposed by the government there that in order to 'promote' innovation, the firms, who will be allowed to enter the zone will be selected by government officials. In the zone they will not have to pay taxes I think but the most important aspect of this is that whoever is in the zone will be getting government contracts WITHOUT any competition. So that tells you everything you need to know about what will happen. The firms selected will be the ones close to the government officials selecting them and they will get the contracts for any 'innovations', which in reality will not promote any innovation, except one type of innovation: an easier way to siphon money for the politicians and their friends/relatives/people with the right attitude towards doing business, if you know what I mean.
You can't handle the truth.
Kangaroos. With frickin' stinger missiles!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I don't respond to AC's normally and I don't really need the Karma for this but...
Do you mean "what is CSIRO"?
Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation.
Or did you mean what are CSIRO's accomplishments (and I hope you're on Wifi being eaten by mosquito's for this one because Wireless LAN and Aeroguard are on that list).
CSIRAC was the forth stored program computer ever made and one of only two first generation computers still intact.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I have an IT background and a decade of experience working with/for Russian government IT-related agencies.
There're several cities in Russia with strong academic traditions which were the analogue of Silicon Valley during Soviet times (Novosibirsk is the best known of all).
There're cities near Moscow which even have high-tech-production infrastructure (Zelenograd, a "microchip city" of Soviet times) - they are not being used.
What government does is building "Silicon Valley" in a empty field near Moscow - easier to launder money this way.
I'm willing to bet a thousand bucks that there are only three possible outcomes:
1) 90% of funding laundered to offshore banks, 10% is spent on administrative expenses (shiny sport cars for management), project is silently closed and written off;
2) 90% of funding laundered to offshore banks, 10% is spent on administrative expenses (shiny sport cars for management), scape goat it found and publicly spanked (but not too hard), project is closed and written off;
3) 90% of funding laundered to offshore banks, 5% is spent on administrative expenses (shiny sport cars for management), 5% is spent to build a couple of buildings and hire 10 scientific-looking guys. They are made into media stars to show how great new "Silicon Valley" is. Project is declared a huge success. After a year the funding is cut, project is silently closed and written off.
There's no other possible outcome given the amount of corruption in Russia and this government track record.
The "Russian tradition of building secret towns?" Towns like Oak Ridge, TN, or Los Alamos, NM, or Hanford, WA, maybe? Explain again how this project is doomed to fail as a government effort to make a technological leap. On the contrary, our own experience is great success doing this sort of thing. Nor is this an American peculiarity--the Germans very successfully built an entire town at Peenemunde to develop and construct V-2 rockets. In fact, here in America we capitalized on this success by moving its authors, notably Werner von Braun, to Huntsville, AL where we created yet another failed government experiment to land men on the moon...
I'm thinking that people should read a bit less Ayn Rand science fiction and a bit more actual history.
I think you are mistaking socialism with a mature and financially stable company.
Bell back in the regulated monopoly days was with out a doubt mature and financially stable. They could do research that might not pay off for 30 years because they knew they would be around in 30 years to benefit from it. They also built infrastructure that would last for decades even if it cost more for that same reason.
IBM still produces a lot of basic science for that same reason. They believe that they will be around for another 100 years. GE, DuPont, and Dow chemical used to and probably still do a lot of basic research for that same reason. They are mature and frankly a lot of their profitability is based on science so they benefit from research.
Even folks like Chrysler back in the 50s got into some pretty wild stuff. Did you know the rocket that launched the first US satellite and the first Mercury sub orbital flight was made by Chrysler?
Intel is probably reaching the level of maturity and long term profitably that they will start doing a lot of long term research.
The problem is that the best research will come from companies that do some kind of manufacturing which the US is doing less and less of.
Take Apple for example. They are not a manufacturing company they are closer to a fashion design house combined with a software developer. Nothing wrong with it but they just don't make stuff. They make pretty packages that they pay other people to fill with stuff Intel and others make. I honestly don't expect anything really ground breaking from them.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.