Pure science from the last millennium

Thank you for tuning in to this audio only podcast presentation.  Here we are, at week 169 of The Lindahl Letter, reflecting on a different kind of science—one rooted in a boldness that prioritized discovery over deadlines, adventure over immediate outcomes. This week’s topic, “Pure science from the last millennium,” brings us to a fundamental question: What do we want scientific investment to be going forward?

Decades ago, space exploration wasn’t about quarterly returns or brand endorsements. It was the “final frontier”—a true and meaningful challenge that demanded our collective curiosity and belief in something larger than ourselves. When we look back at Voyager 1, launched in September of 1977 and still sending back data from beyond the solar system, we’re reminded of an era when we were willing to invest in the unknown and pure science [1]. We, the taxpayers, poured resources into pure science, trusting that whatever Voyager discovered would expand our horizons, even if it took generations. Those investments bank intergenerational equality in ways that pay forward with unlocked potential. 

That previous era of government driven budgets is evolving. Today, we’re witnessing a new chapter in space exploration, one driven not only by government agencies but by private space companies backed by some very rich individuals. Companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others are racing to develop technologies that can propel humanity forward, not just in the pursuit of knowledge but with a practical eye on commercial possibilities. These companies have reignited public interest in space exploration, capturing imaginations with promises of lunar bases, Mars colonies, and low-cost satellites. But they bring a shift in perspective too—a focus on efficiency, profitability, and measurable results.

Private companies are undeniably accelerating technological progress. They’re launching rockets at a pace governments could never match and making space travel more accessible. In many ways, they’re pushing us into the future faster than traditional models of science funding would allow. But this pace has implications: private companies often operate on a very different timeline and set of incentives than the public missions of the past. The long, open-ended pure science based inquiries that characterized projects like Voyager or Hubble might not fit as seamlessly into the bottom-line-driven model of private enterprise.

What does this mean for the future of pure science? There’s a risk that in our rush to commercialize space, we could lose sight of the kind of exploration that doesn’t pay off right away, the kind that asks questions not because they’re immediately useful but because they might change everything someday. Voyager, Hubble, and the Mars rovers were funded with a faith that curiosity itself was valuable. They didn’t need to deliver a profit; they only needed to expand our knowledge.

Investment in pure science has, over the years, shifted in response to economic pressures, political priorities, and the rise of private industry. In the mid-20th century, there was a golden age of public funding for fundamental research, driven by a sense of national pride and urgency, especially during the Space Race. Governments around the world poured money into science for the sake of knowledge itself—driven by the belief that scientific exploration, even with uncertain outcomes, would ultimately benefit society. This mindset fueled projects like the Apollo missions, the Voyager probes, and the Hubble Space Telescope, all examples of pure scientific research where the primary goal was exploration, not commercial gain.

But over the last few decades, the focus has gradually shifted toward more immediate, application-driven science. Public budgets have tightened, and government funding has increasingly emphasized practical and commercial outcomes. Today, many funding bodies expect quick, measurable results—preferably ones that contribute to the economy, healthcare, or national security. This shift means that pure scientific research, with its inherently uncertain timeline and lack of immediate commercial payoff, often struggles to secure the same level of investment it once enjoyed.

Thank you for joining me this week, and here’s to staying curious, even in a world that asks us to measure every journey in miles and profits.

Things to consider this week:

TechCrunch: “Bluesky raises $15M Series A, plans to launch subscriptions”https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/24/bluesky-raises-15m-series-a-plans-to-launch-subscriptions/

Reuters: “New Nvidia AI chips overheating in servers, the Information reports”https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nvidia-ai-chips-face-issue-141200900.html 

[Must watch] Gary Marcus: OpenAI could be the next WeWork https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6364719527112

Footnotes:

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/01/science/voyager-1-transmitter-issue/index.html 

If you enjoyed this content, then please take a moment and share it with a friend. If you are new to The Lindahl Letter, then please consider subscribing. Make sure to stay curious, stay informed, and enjoy the week ahead!