Great post! I'm curious how the space race contributes to your findings. Specifically, what role does JFK's space race speech given to Congress on on May 25, 1961 play? I was just re-reading this speech where section IX on page 8 talks about the space race. A really neat document to revisit and consider while thinking about space, time, history, and spending. Also, the typeface (I'm getting Smith-Corona typewriter vibes)! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/JFKPOF-034-030._Special_message_to_Congress_on_urgent_national_needs%2C_25_May_1961.pdf
Karis, great question. Some part of the 1960s surge in government R&D spend was focused on the Cold War. You can see this in the changing spend priorities (e.g. electrical engineering, physics) during that time versus after (more life sciences focus). But the space race plays a really big role. From 1960-1973 the government spent $318 billion in 2023 dollars, or about $25billion a year just on the Apollo project. Spending on non-defense R&D nearly triples as a share of the federal budget after JFK's speech.
Hi Tom, thanks for raising this point - and your thoughts on it would be most welcome! I believe this statement in the post is relevant here: 'whoever does provide the funds will have a much larger role in what gets done – and who does it'. We could have extended that statement to include 'how it gets done'. One path might be much more highly proprietary industry-funded research with 'sharing' only with the sponsoring firm. But, being entrepreneurial may well mean faculty need to form creative coalitions around research thrusts to pitch ideas/funding models to new/different sponsors. Or, faculty may need to create more organizations like your Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), to do things collectively they can't as individuals. Speculation aside, this is an issue that bears watching closely and more discussion.
This was a very thoughtful and balanced discussion of the major challenges facing research universities. You hint at the possibility that faculty may need to become even more entrepreneurial than they are now. That is a double-edged sword, and deserves further discussion. Will these new faculty be willing to share their ideas freely with others? Will they operate as if they are in a zero sum game? These are challenging times for academics! Thanks for this valuable Substack!
Great post! I'm curious how the space race contributes to your findings. Specifically, what role does JFK's space race speech given to Congress on on May 25, 1961 play? I was just re-reading this speech where section IX on page 8 talks about the space race. A really neat document to revisit and consider while thinking about space, time, history, and spending. Also, the typeface (I'm getting Smith-Corona typewriter vibes)! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/JFKPOF-034-030._Special_message_to_Congress_on_urgent_national_needs%2C_25_May_1961.pdf
Karis, great question. Some part of the 1960s surge in government R&D spend was focused on the Cold War. You can see this in the changing spend priorities (e.g. electrical engineering, physics) during that time versus after (more life sciences focus). But the space race plays a really big role. From 1960-1973 the government spent $318 billion in 2023 dollars, or about $25billion a year just on the Apollo project. Spending on non-defense R&D nearly triples as a share of the federal budget after JFK's speech.
Hi Tom, thanks for raising this point - and your thoughts on it would be most welcome! I believe this statement in the post is relevant here: 'whoever does provide the funds will have a much larger role in what gets done – and who does it'. We could have extended that statement to include 'how it gets done'. One path might be much more highly proprietary industry-funded research with 'sharing' only with the sponsoring firm. But, being entrepreneurial may well mean faculty need to form creative coalitions around research thrusts to pitch ideas/funding models to new/different sponsors. Or, faculty may need to create more organizations like your Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), to do things collectively they can't as individuals. Speculation aside, this is an issue that bears watching closely and more discussion.
This was a very thoughtful and balanced discussion of the major challenges facing research universities. You hint at the possibility that faculty may need to become even more entrepreneurial than they are now. That is a double-edged sword, and deserves further discussion. Will these new faculty be willing to share their ideas freely with others? Will they operate as if they are in a zero sum game? These are challenging times for academics! Thanks for this valuable Substack!