On Hacker News, I found a link to a rather interesting article in Frontier Economy. In The Mediocre Returns of Extraordinary Technologies the authors note that technologies like the printing press, while extremely disruptive, have not often resulted in fortunes for those involved in the industry, at least not directly.
Many reasons are provided, from the short lifecycle of disruptive to mundane, the patent system, etc. But the primary reason, at least in that article, is that prices are driven by cost, not utility. That point, and the general thrust of the article got me thinking. Is monetary success a viable, or even appropriate yardstick to measure, or try for, the success of a technology.
When I think of disruptive in my lifetime, I think of the personal computer, PCR, genome sequencing, the internet, Google, just to name a few. In some cases, those who developed the “technology” made a lot of money, in other cases no, so there is no clear pattern. And even in the case of Google, the money was not made from the core technology itself, which is ubiquitous, but from the markets and opportunities the search was able to create.
In the sciences, I believe we fall into the trap of thinking advances can make fortunes. Anything that is fundamental to the advancement of science will likely, and should not, be a source of fortune, at least not directly. In a world where making a fortune is an important metric of success, we should remember that there are other motivations that drive us to develop new technologies and advance sciences. In the end, it is about solving a problem. If you can solve a problem, and monetize it, you need to be in a situation where you understand the economic impact, and also realize that the technology is not one that is going to become ubiquitous and pervasive.
The articles conclusion is one I definitely agree with
… always keep in mind that in most industries, no matter how advanced, you are selling tools to other people. They are the ones that will use the tools, and they are the ones most likely to reap the bulk of the benefits of them. And they should: they are the ones changing the world.
The good news is that in science most of us realize that
Technology, disruption and making fortunes
On Hacker News, I found a link to a rather interesting article in Frontier Economy. In The Mediocre Returns of Extraordinary Technologies the authors note that technologies like the printing press, while extremely disruptive, have not often resulted in fortunes for those involved in the industry, at least not directly.
Many reasons are provided, from the short lifecycle of disruptive to mundane, the patent system, etc. But the primary reason, at least in that article, is that prices are driven by cost, not utility. That point, and the general thrust of the article got me thinking. Is monetary success a viable, or even appropriate yardstick to measure, or try for, the success of a technology.
When I think of disruptive in my lifetime, I think of the personal computer, PCR, genome sequencing, the internet, Google, just to name a few. In some cases, those who developed the “technology” made a lot of money, in other cases no, so there is no clear pattern. And even in the case of Google, the money was not made from the core technology itself, which is ubiquitous, but from the markets and opportunities the search was able to create.
In the sciences, I believe we fall into the trap of thinking advances can make fortunes. Anything that is fundamental to the advancement of science will likely, and should not, be a source of fortune, at least not directly. In a world where making a fortune is an important metric of success, we should remember that there are other motivations that drive us to develop new technologies and advance sciences. In the end, it is about solving a problem. If you can solve a problem, and monetize it, you need to be in a situation where you understand the economic impact, and also realize that the technology is not one that is going to become ubiquitous and pervasive.
The articles conclusion is one I definitely agree with
The good news is that in science most of us realize that