Re: Has Scientific development been more rapid during times of competition.

Hello Stuart.

There is an old saying that necessity is the mother of invention. But 
perhaps a more accurate way of stating it would be "necessity is the mother 
of creative application."

Competition during the second world war gave us the technology and 
understanding for heart transplants, nuclear power, computers, jet engines, 
radar, and dozens of other things. It also led to improvements in existing 
technology, such as radio.

A few decades later, competition to be the first nation to the moon led to 
the invention of cordless tools and the study of alternitave energies, and 
many more useful ideas.

However, these types of advancements don't really constitute scientific 
discovery. They are more properly described as applications of scientific 
principles. True scientific discovery - such as Einstein's theory of 
relativity, Crick and Watson's explaination of the DNA molecule, or 
Galileo's discovery that the planets orbit the sun - scientific discoveries 
such as these seem to come without the influence of competition. Perhaps 
this is because those rare geniuses who make such discoveries are often 
pioneering their fields, so there really isn't any competition in their 
fields.

Can this be demonstrated? I don't see how it could, honestly. How can we 
measure the motives of the ones making the discoveries and applying them to 
accomplish what has never been done before? There have been many scientific 
breakthroughs in pharmaceuticals, and there are many pharmaceutical 
companies in economic competition with each other. But I'm reasonably sure 
that any of the scientists involved in the breakthroughs would say their 
discoveries were made to improve the quality of life for everyone. We know 
the competition exists; we just can't say how much of an influence it is. 
With this in mind, it seems pointless to count the number of patents issued 
during war years and compare them with the non-war statistics.

So to answer your question, I would say that scientific discovery has not 
been more rapid during times of competition, but the application of 
existing discoveries has. I hope this answers your question,

Layne Johnson

Dan Berger adds:
On the other hand, there is a good bit of competition even in pure science.
Serendipity probably has the largest share of the credit for scientific
advance, but if a problem is popular you will normally get a solution much
faster than you will to a less glamorous problem, simply because there are
more people working on it and they are working flat out. Only one group can
get credit, so everyone tries to be the first to get a breakthrough and get it
into print...

But by and large I have to say that I think Layne is right.