Metrics

I just spoke with my father. I asked him if he knew of any ways to measure our progress towards the goal of promoting science in this country, and he had no idea. He says he knows some program managers at NSF, but that may not be good enough.

The NSF strategic plan emphasizes the importance of funding basic science research. I don't disagree, I think that the seriousness given to progress in science and the arts in a large way defines the civilization that gives rise to it. However, measuring progress relies on substantive considerations, while any particular approach to support progress is procedural. It's these procedures that must be measured and compared against one another. Funding private research is a good procedure, but who is to say that taking the same money and spending it another way doesn't better promote the progress of science? In fact, the NSF spends almost as much developing an intelligent and capable workforce ($1,153M) and tools to enable research ($1,341M) as it does on the actual research ($2,696M).

In my last private sector job, I had to undergo an annual performance review. Each year, my boss and I would go over my goals for the past year, and how close I came to achieving them. In a results-oriented company, the method for achieving the goal is not as important as the fact that the goal was achieved, by any method subject to certain ethical and legal constraints.

Measuring the progress of a particular research project is easy enough. Set milestones, and at the end of the period make a list of what was accomplished and what wasn't. The problem is that this approach deals with the execution of individual projects, not measuring the contribution that the projects make to the overall progress of science. My boss wants me to finish my projects, yes, but he also wants those projects to contribute to the overall well-being of the company. If he assigns me useless things to do and I execute them flawlessly, nothing is gained.

The goal stated in article I, section 8, clause 8 is clear: promote progress in science and useful arts. The laws passed by Congress establishing the NSF and NEA follow these lines, as do the organizations' respective strategic plans. Yet precious little attention seems to be paid to determining how well we're doing at actually achieving that goal. It's time to put real metrics on our progress toward that goal.

The Constitution needs a performance review.

Peter Jennings

I feel as though I have lost a friend I never met. A man of courage and conviction, and dedication to the important things in life. Only after watching the ABC documentary on his life did I realize the profound pull his broadcasts had on me. I always gravitated to him, and now I see we had so much in common. A great shining light has been lost, and will be sorely missed. God speed, Mr. Jennings.

Dichotomy

Georges Méliès was a pioneer of filmmaking. He revolutionized the use of the nascent technology, which until his time had been primarily seen as a recording medium. Méliès introduced imagination and special effects into films. He was the first to use a number of techniques, including dissolves, double exposures, stop-motion photography to animate objects, and actors playing opposite themselves using a split screen. He is credited as having created the first science fiction movie, Le Voyage dans la Lune, in 1902. The famous image of the Man in the Moon struck in the face by a rocket comes from this movie. Méliès wanted to show this movie in America, where it should have made him a fortune. However, the movie was pirated by Thomas Edison, and Méliès never got any money from its showings in America. The theatre that he owned, where he first learned his craft, was demolished, and he was discovered years later selling candy and toys in a train station booth.

I generally think that IP is not the right way to achieve progress, and yet I think it might have prevented the crime that Edison did to Méliès. IP law could have protected Melies, and rightly should have. Why is IP bad on one hand, yet good on the other? What's the difference? Méliès deserved protection because he was doing Good for the arts, in my own opinion. Why is my opinion important? It seems that I make judgment calls on what is and is not progress, based on my own expertise.

I think that the progress of the arts and sciences should be measured by those who have expertise in such progress -- artists and scientists. Since they deal with the state-of-the-art, as it were, on a regular basis, they are in the best position to determine whether progress is really being made. They are also best suited to determine the methodologies that would best promote that progress. They are, in legal parlance, the 'cheapest cost avoiders' in determining progress.

Progress

Article I, sec. 8, cl. 8 of the Constitution says "[The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". This clause is the legal authority of copyright and patent 'intellectual property' in the U.S.

There is an important distinction to be made here. The purpose of the law is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. The methodology that is currently employed to attain that goal is the creation of IP. However, there must be some kind of metric for progress (or its promotion) independent of the implementation. Otherwise, the metric is corrupted by what we think is right now, and we lose perspective. For example, measuring progress by the number of copyrights filed is wrong, since progress could be had without the existence of copyright law. The trick is coming up with a metric which isn't tied to a particular implementation scheme.

To paraphrase: the goal is X, and the way we're going to get to that goal is Y. If all we do is concentrate on doing Y or measuring Y, then we lose sight of X. That describes the state of IP in this country, and I think it's time we got back to focusing on X again.