Microsoft Research does a lot of basic R&D. Most technology companies are fundamentally R&D companies. Also, the J Craig Venter institute.
One of the issues that with the transition from the industrial age to the information age is that our focus has shifted from industrial research to information research. Because so much of the information age is intangible it's unclear that real progress is happening.
Two things have happened that further hide these issues, the results of research are incrementally realized and the pace has increased to such a rate that it is simply expected. News is when the transistor density or aerial density does NOT double in a year.
Even with industrial research the issue is that no one is around to see the benefits. When someone figures out how to run a lights out factory they will be hailed as greedy instead of innovative.
Even the BP disaster is an example of corporate R&D, does anyone else find it incredible that we are repairing (or not repairing) an oil well that is 5,000 feet under water and there are no humans in sight? The fact that the disaster is even possible should be awe inspiring to the technological progress of humanity.
However, I think my first reaction to the depth that they were drilling was "That's fucking awesome!" rather than "that's fucking stupid." The stupid was finding out that they were taking this for granted now and skimping on the safety.
Speaking of, BP does a lot of R&D in the energy field themselves. Even the energy companies want to be in on alternative energy when it comes.
> Even the energy companies want to be in on alternative energy when it comes.
The oil companies are not stupid. There will come a day when it is no longer economically feasible to extract the remaining oil. Any company that hasn't diversified by then can turn off the lights and go home.
> The fact that the [BP] disaster is even possible should be awe inspiring to the technological progress of humanity.
I wouldn't describe that as "technological progress". Technology is usually described as 1) controlling natural powers to 2) reach some purpose. The BP disaster fails to achieve both.
More generally, sloppy security standards are a strong sign that a technology is either not fully developed or not fully understood. This holds for engineering as well as for programming.
So the disaster is a sign of missing progress in technology.
You wouldn't describe mankind's ability to extract oil from 5,000 feet under water technological progress? You might as well say that the Space Shuttle wasn't technological progress because of the Challenger disaster.
The space shuttle was under enough control to prevent a catastrophe around the crash site.
In contrast, what we see with BP is a failed experiment that is out of control for months. It is not a demonstration of technological progressiveness. The experiment was falsely labeled as "technology" in order to receive more public trust when it was started.
This is a marketing trick we know from software companies as well. (Fortunately, many companies are honest in that regard.)
However, maybe it is just a question of wording, i.e. whether big, risky experiments count or don't count as technology. My personal understanding of technology implies some minimum degree on maturity. In particular, anticipatory acting should be at least possible.
There are over 4000 oil platforms in the gulf of Mexico alone. According to wikipedia, we've had 4 spills in the gulf, two of which are major (Deepwater Horizon and Ixtoc).
In contrast, we've had 132 space shuttle launches, 2 of which killed everyone on board.
> we've had 4 spills in the gulf, two of which are major
And yet "we" are completely unprepared for oil spills, needing months to recover from worst-case scenarios (and decades if not centuries to recover from the long-term damage). That isn't "progressive".
> we've had 132 space shuttle launches, 2 of which killed everyone on board
It is hard for me to see in how far these incidents are comparable.
The damage of space shuttle launches was local to the "experimental room" and was under control in the sense that "just" the shuttles were destroyed and nothing else. The crews were informed about the risk of that experiment and accepted to take the risk.
One of the issues that with the transition from the industrial age to the information age is that our focus has shifted from industrial research to information research. Because so much of the information age is intangible it's unclear that real progress is happening.
Two things have happened that further hide these issues, the results of research are incrementally realized and the pace has increased to such a rate that it is simply expected. News is when the transistor density or aerial density does NOT double in a year.
Even with industrial research the issue is that no one is around to see the benefits. When someone figures out how to run a lights out factory they will be hailed as greedy instead of innovative.
Even the BP disaster is an example of corporate R&D, does anyone else find it incredible that we are repairing (or not repairing) an oil well that is 5,000 feet under water and there are no humans in sight? The fact that the disaster is even possible should be awe inspiring to the technological progress of humanity.