What do you think?
Rate this book
Scientific Freedom
Scientific Freedom outlines what needs to be done to restore the freedom that can transform scientific understanding. The author defines Transformative Research (Venture Research) and explains how an initiative might be designed and implemented; discusses the revolutionary concept of low-risk, high-reward research; explains the wider significance of instability, and introduces the formidable Damocles Zone; explores threats to the university as an institution; and describes how a Transformative Research initiative might work in practice.
196 pages, Paperback
First published February 25, 2008
55 people are currently reading
658 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
October 10, 2022
Story of an experiment in how science is funded. I was disappointed by the overall standard of argument - evidence was often muddled and cliche-ridden, and sometimes non-existent. But it's valuable that Braben did the experiment, that he took the time to set out his thinking, and there are many useful tidbits of insight. I also enjoyed the account of what he funded, at the end of the book - his enthusiasm was infectious.
February 12, 2023
2.5 stars
The core of the book is the idea that scientific research is now too bureaucratic and non-transformational. Peer review has penetrated every aspect of science - so instead of just results being reviewed and validated, funding proposals to explore ideas are now peer-reviewed. If the peers reviewing proposals don't believe the ideas have enough merit (or experience and biases leave reviewers blind to innovative possibilities), proposals are denied, and lots of great ideas die on the vine.
The solution is TR or Transformative Research, which is really just "basic research" unconstrained by modern expectations of short-term payoffs in the applicability of scientific results and outcomes.
The author, Braben, ran BP's (yes, the oil company) Venture Research group from 1980 to 1990 before it was shut down. BP supported this group with virtually-no-strings-attached research funding for transformational research, without the normal baggage of funding approvals, peer reviews on every aspect of the process, and administrative nightmares most scientists face. The program by all accounts - as Chapter 6 and 7 discussed - was highly successful.
The lower rating reflects the dryness of the first 5 chapters of the book. The interesting idea - that science is overly constrained by process - was unpacked nicely enough in the book's intro that I thought the next few chapters could have been significantly abridged.
Even though the author is not part of the academic "establishment", the writing was in places very academic (in the dry vocabular sense) in many places and I struggled to stay engaged.
Chapter 7, the deep dive through all the transformational science, was the payoff!
Another beautiful Stripe Press book.
The core of the book is the idea that scientific research is now too bureaucratic and non-transformational. Peer review has penetrated every aspect of science - so instead of just results being reviewed and validated, funding proposals to explore ideas are now peer-reviewed. If the peers reviewing proposals don't believe the ideas have enough merit (or experience and biases leave reviewers blind to innovative possibilities), proposals are denied, and lots of great ideas die on the vine.
The solution is TR or Transformative Research, which is really just "basic research" unconstrained by modern expectations of short-term payoffs in the applicability of scientific results and outcomes.
The author, Braben, ran BP's (yes, the oil company) Venture Research group from 1980 to 1990 before it was shut down. BP supported this group with virtually-no-strings-attached research funding for transformational research, without the normal baggage of funding approvals, peer reviews on every aspect of the process, and administrative nightmares most scientists face. The program by all accounts - as Chapter 6 and 7 discussed - was highly successful.
The lower rating reflects the dryness of the first 5 chapters of the book. The interesting idea - that science is overly constrained by process - was unpacked nicely enough in the book's intro that I thought the next few chapters could have been significantly abridged.
Even though the author is not part of the academic "establishment", the writing was in places very academic (in the dry vocabular sense) in many places and I struggled to stay engaged.
Chapter 7, the deep dive through all the transformational science, was the payoff!
Another beautiful Stripe Press book.
January 28, 2021
Not actually finished: the last 70 pages or so are a pile of anecdotes about what the author calls "Transformative Research" (TR), that is, discoveries in basic theory that open up piles and piles of new applications (instead of investing that same cash and intellectual effort into incremental improvements on known theories). I decided to leave those 70 pages to thumb through in various random moments when I want to be inspired, instead of reading them all at once.
Braben introduces the notion of "the Planck Club"- a list of scientists who's research can be said to be "transformative" in the above way, and tries to systematize the properties of everyone on the list. One of these crucial properties was the idea that TR comes about not through what post-1970s careerist science would call "goal-directed", that is, you must let your curiosity stay vaguer than what the grantwriting cycle would beat into you. There's also the stuff you'd expect about having some (large) amount of grit and general intelligence, but the emphasis that may not have been obvious was one patience, both for the individuals doing the research and with the funders. He then writes about how incentives have diverged from what generates TR, at great length, and pinpoints the 1970s as the beginning of an era when it all went wrong.
He makes a much stronger claim even than Cixin Liu makes in Three Body Problem: Both have an energizing progress theory that greatly values transformative research, but I think in Cixin Liu's notion of progress is that civilization gets stuck without it- we undershoots our potential. Yet Braben, with the chapter on Damocles, suggests that civilization dies without it because of fundamental risk & instability, that the war against entropy needs to be watered with the blood of radical new theories every once in a while.
It reads as a book primarily by and for grantmakers - Braben's experience, besides doing science directly, is as a grantmaker who practiced what he now preaches - and says more about how to identify talent than about how to be talent.
Conflicted between 2 and 3 stars, because in some contexts it's an important book, but I'm not sure exactly how important it was for me to read.
Braben introduces the notion of "the Planck Club"- a list of scientists who's research can be said to be "transformative" in the above way, and tries to systematize the properties of everyone on the list. One of these crucial properties was the idea that TR comes about not through what post-1970s careerist science would call "goal-directed", that is, you must let your curiosity stay vaguer than what the grantwriting cycle would beat into you. There's also the stuff you'd expect about having some (large) amount of grit and general intelligence, but the emphasis that may not have been obvious was one patience, both for the individuals doing the research and with the funders. He then writes about how incentives have diverged from what generates TR, at great length, and pinpoints the 1970s as the beginning of an era when it all went wrong.
He makes a much stronger claim even than Cixin Liu makes in Three Body Problem: Both have an energizing progress theory that greatly values transformative research, but I think in Cixin Liu's notion of progress is that civilization gets stuck without it- we undershoots our potential. Yet Braben, with the chapter on Damocles, suggests that civilization dies without it because of fundamental risk & instability, that the war against entropy needs to be watered with the blood of radical new theories every once in a while.
It reads as a book primarily by and for grantmakers - Braben's experience, besides doing science directly, is as a grantmaker who practiced what he now preaches - and says more about how to identify talent than about how to be talent.
Conflicted between 2 and 3 stars, because in some contexts it's an important book, but I'm not sure exactly how important it was for me to read.
December 14, 2020
Exceptional scientists produce transformative work when they are the most free. It is the administrators and the managers who ruined the innovation of science. We should free science.
That's what most of the book is about.
I found that this book did not consider enough the incentives which made administrators intervene so much in the scientific process, and how to change those incentives. Thus, this book sounded like a "science ought to be free" call which is already repeated enough among researchers. The first part of the book lacked great historical storytelling or innovative ideas for me to consider it interesting.
Where the book was most convincing was in its last chapter, where Braben reflected on his experience running what he believe science should be, some funding of top researchers with potential "nobel prize winning" ideas, and the most administrative freedom with no expected outcome. While running this program at BP, he showed that scientists would come asking for help when needed, and manage to create breakthrough developments while left free from administrative pressure.
I would recommend this book for someone who want to read about scientific policies while not being part of the research world. Otherwise, you should read mainly the first and last chapter.
That's what most of the book is about.
I found that this book did not consider enough the incentives which made administrators intervene so much in the scientific process, and how to change those incentives. Thus, this book sounded like a "science ought to be free" call which is already repeated enough among researchers. The first part of the book lacked great historical storytelling or innovative ideas for me to consider it interesting.
Where the book was most convincing was in its last chapter, where Braben reflected on his experience running what he believe science should be, some funding of top researchers with potential "nobel prize winning" ideas, and the most administrative freedom with no expected outcome. While running this program at BP, he showed that scientists would come asking for help when needed, and manage to create breakthrough developments while left free from administrative pressure.
I would recommend this book for someone who want to read about scientific policies while not being part of the research world. Otherwise, you should read mainly the first and last chapter.
Read
November 6, 2024“the operation was a success but the patient died” category
Max Planck ’ s work that led to the discovery of energy quantization
peak of a “ golden age ”
maser (microwave amplifi cation by stimulated emission of radiation)
Bell Laboratories, and their collaboration led to the optical version of the maser — the laser. Townes was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 for these discoveries
He announced that he would use his 20/20 foresight to describe the powerful discoveries that would enrich the coming twentieth century. “ However, your language does not yet contain the words I need to describe the future, ” he said, so he put a spell on the audience that conjured visions of energy quantization, relativity theory, atomic and nuclear structure, quantum mechanics, and molecular biology to give some impressions of the sciences that might shortly come. With mounting excitement, he outlined some of the magical technologies that might stem from them: magnetic resonance imaging and a wealth of other medical diagnostics, lasers, nuclear power, computers, telecommunications, and genetic manipulation. You are not wizards. ” These last words came in an intense growl. Then he disappeared, and I woke up.
Diamond concludes that the forest fi nally disappeared by about 1600 to provide the most extreme example of forest destruction in the Pacific. the island ’ s ecology is totally dependent on trees, and demand for them eventually outstripped Nature ’ s supply. Without trees, migrating birds could not nest and a vital food supply vanished. Without trees, the islanders could not build long - range canoes, and so deep - sea fi sh, dolphins, porpoises, and tuna became inaccessible.
Statue building was apparently the principal mode of competition among the island ’ s dozen or so factions. If one faction withdrew from the statue - building race, it would effectively be throwing in the towel. The leadership might have pointed out that the island still had a viable number of trees and a much larger number of saplings. We do not have to worry, therefore, their leaders might have said, the saplings will grow in due course and more than replace the trees we take.
Damocles Zone (see Chapter 1 ). Once tree cover had fallen below a certain critical level, the islanders ’ fate would have been sealed.
It is possible that my message may be seen as elitist and of interest only to those very few scientists who might be putative members of a twenty - fi rst century Planck Club. That interpretation would be wrong. One of the themes here is that almost every serious researcher is at some time in a career capable of taking those fateful steps that might lead to a great discovery or the creation of penetrating new insight. They might then need to draw on vast reserves of courage and determination, and perhaps also a little luck if they are to make progress. At any one time, of course, the proportion of researchers ready to seize that possibly once - in - a - lifetime opportunity will be very small, so if they are prevented from doing so the democratic pressure they can exert is insignifi cant.
Collapse and instability are never far away. The world is generally a pleasant and predictable place only because of the feedback mechanisms that usually tame the instabilities. My conjecture is that at the highest social levels creativity provides the vital feedback that keeps societies and civilizations healthy. Crushing it, as was done during the Dark Ages, for example, pushes us into that fateful Damocles Zone and makes us highly vulnerable.
The temperature of the core, for example, is uncertain to about 1000 ° C. Earth ’ s magnetic fi eld has declined about 20% in the last hundred years, and it is possible that we are seeing the prelude to one of the periodic magnetic - pole f l ips that occur on average about every million years.
As Earth warms, for example, evaporation of water vapor — another greenhouse gas — should increase thereby increasing global warming, but which also should increase the rate of cloud formation. Clouds increase Earth ’ s refl ectivity, and hence reduce the Sun ’ s heat arriving at the surface.
Scientists willingly gave up their freedom during World War II to serve their countries, and their contributions in such areas as radar, communications, code breaking, and the atomic bomb were crucial. That directed management - by objectives mode could easily have become the norm as it was so obviously successful
demands for funds outstripping supply
Venture Researchers were phenomenally successful. At least 14 groups or individuals made transformative discoveries, but their proposals had all been rejected by the usual funding agencies.
Growth depends on technical change, but management by objectives and other instruments of bureaucracy are strangling scientifi c research,
we could synthesize the elixir that perpetuates civilization indefi nitely
these controls maintain human body temperature at approximately 37 ° C independently of whether we are resting, sitting in a steaming sauna, or engaged in vigorous exercise. At the cellular level, cells are constantly dividing and reproducing, of course, processes that even in healthy people may frequently and hopefully transiently go out of control. If uncontrolled growth persists, it would lead to tumors and cancers, but a fully functioning immune systems will quickly restore growth to its normal levels. At the molecular level, regulation is similarly complex. As John Maddox puts it: “ A cell is a self - regulating biochemical democracy in which the several parts are continually casting votes in the form of the chemical signals they transmit.
believe half-truths as gospels
But where is the proof for your assertion? ” As the eighteenth - century Adam Smith had offered none, his radical views could have been safely dismissed as merely an expression of opinion. However, a suffi cient number of infl uential people appreciated the value of his thinking, and so Smith ’ s ideas took root.
Life expectancy at birth in 2000, for example, was some 77 years in the United Kingdom and the United States, while it was some 37 years in Zambia. * In contrast, in 1842 in Manchester (UK), for example, a professional male had a life expectancy at birth of 38 years (Wood 1991 ), whereas that of a manual worker was only 17 years.
A reasonable reaction in those circumstances would have been for the Unit to seek, say, a moratorium on statue building for a few years. They could have told the authorities that if they continued to cut down trees, then one day, probably without warning, they would not only have to manage with fewer trees but with none at all, with all the grave consequences that would entail. Had the authorities heeded my imaginary Ecology Research Unit ’ s warnings, they might then have agreed on a reasonable rate of stone - statue building, entry into the Damocles Zone might have been avoided, and Jared Diamond might have written about a sustainable success rather than a catastrophic collapse.
Another cause for concern is that the world ’ s economic systems are becoming increasingly monolithic. This tendency might be stimulated by the emerging economies ’ wish to increase their share of global prosperity.
The Economist, in a “ Survey of the world economy ” published on September 16, 2006, said: Last year the combined output of emerging economies reached an important milestone: it accounted for more than half of total world GDP (measured at purchasing - power parity). This means that the rich countries no longer dominate the global economy. The developing countries also have a far greater infl uence on the performance of the rich economies than is generally realized. Emerging economies are driving global growth and having a big impact on developed countries ’ infl ation, interest rates, wages and profi ts.
Thus, for example, in 2006, China became the largest holder of foreign exchange reserves, * and the British steel industry was transferred to the ownership of Indian capitalists.
the most important problems facing humanity include terrorism, the rise in religious fundamentalism, pollution and global warming, poverty and disease, the security and availability of energy supplies
smart people like to be near smart people
Max Planck must have turned in his grave.
Before the 1950s, the main sources of economic growth were thought to be
• Capital
• Labor
• Resources
output per hour of work
His study of American growth between 1929 and 1982 concluded that education per worker accounts for 30% of the increase in output per worker
Linus Pauling had unconventional views on vitamin C; Albert von Szent - Gy ö rgyi had unconventional views on almost everything; Barbara McClintock ’ s transformative ideas on jumping genes were ignored for years, as was Peter Mitchell ’ s chemiosmotic theory. All of these latter scientists eventually won Nobel Prizes
a universal language like Esperanto
The twentieth century was strongly infl uenced by the work of a relatively small number of scientists:
Max Planck Discovered that energy is quantized
Ernest Rutherford Founded nuclear physics
Albert Einstein Photoelectric effect; special and general relativity
Paul A. M. Dirac Predicted existence of positrons
Wolfgang Pauli Exclusion principle; predicted existence of neutrinos
Erwin Schr ö dinger Founded wave mechanics
Werner K. Heisenberg Founded quantum mechanics; uncertainty principle
Alexander Fleming Discovered penicillin
Enrico Fermi Built fi rst nuclear reactor
Oswald T. Avery Discovered that DNA is the genetic molecule
Linus Pauling Seminal work on the nature of the chemical bond
Dorothy C. Hodgkin Pioneered X - ray diffraction techniques
Max Perutz Discovered structure of hemoglobin
Francis Crick and James D. Watson Discovered double - helix structure of DNA
John Bardeen, Walter H. Brattain, and William B. Shockley Invented the transistor
Dennis Gabor Invented holography
Charles H. Townes Invented the maser
Barbara McClintock Discovered transposons
James Black Discovered how to design targeted pharmaceutical drugs
Sydney Brenner Pioneered molecular biology
Science , one of the world ’ s most authoritative journals, has in recent years been publishing their year - end nomination for “ Breakthrough of the Year ”
The United States has 17 of the world ’ s top 20 universities, and employs 70% of the world ’ s Nobel Prize winners
The Nobel Prize is awarded “ to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefi t on mankind. ”
I am reminded of the joke about the schoolboy who claimed that spiders ’ ears were in their legs. To prove it, he produced a spider, yelled at it, and watched it run away. He then caught the spider and cruelly pulled off its legs. He yelled at it again, but this time it stayed put. “ You see, it can ’ t hear me now, ” he said.
current dogma maintains that the universe was created at some specifi c moment some 13.6 billion years ago. It then requires an almost immediate but transient expansion at speeds vastly * exceeding the velocity of light in order that predictions from current theories can be made compatible with what we actually observe.
*Apparently, the expansion of the universe during the brief infl ationary period is required to proceed at a speed exceeding 10 20 times the velocity of light.
Anders Wimo estimated * in 2006 that worldwide costs for dementia care were $ 248 billion a year.
freedom is as essential to scientists as legs are to a spider.
Only trace quantities of that vitamin are required for survival, but on the other hand, taking none at all would soon terminate a person ’ s existence.
Pasteur in microbiology and immunology, and Perkin with dyestuffs searched for and achieved industrial applications for their research
In the consultancy fi eld, the old adage was that successful consultants merely delivered the advice their customers wanted to hear.
computer science (as opposed to computing science), was a meaningless term because it was like referring to surgery as “ knife science. ”
Quantifi ed the rules describing distributed intelligence in animals
Bose – Einstein statistics . Furthermore, they demonstrated that below a certain critical temperature a collection (a gas) of these particles — “ bosons ” — could undergo a transition to a single quantum state described by a simple, macroscopic parameter, and usually referred to as a condensate . It was already known that superconducting behavior occurred in certain metallic materials at suffi ciently low temperatures, and that it closely resembled the dissipationless behavior of electrons bound in atoms and molecules. In the 1930s superconductivity was joined by a new stable mate — superfl uidity
took some of the wind from their sails
Pg 145 diagram of Pythagorean Proof
If electrons are free to move within the crystal lattice, the material is a metal; whereas for insulators, the electrons are always bound. However, it is possible that all materials will be conductors (i.e., metals) if the external pressure is high enough. Liquid hydrogen, for example, is usually an insulator, but becomes metallic at pressures above approximately 2 million atmospheres. The planet Jupiter, the largest of the solar system ’ s gas giants, is composed mainly of hydrogen and helium. These elements may become superconducting at the intense pressures of the planet ’ s interior, and may be the source of its high magnetic fi eld.
free to follow their science wherever it might lead them
(Tofts and Franks 1992 ), and led to the fi rst application of that calculus to any fi eld outside computation.
Pendry was very much a rising star
Catalysis is one of the most important fi elds in chemistry
liquid CO 2 for extracting caffeine from coffee
regenerate (e.g., nerve tissue)
His work has been recognized by the president of the United States (awarded the 2005 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award), and by the Queen (awarded the 2006 Queen ’ s Anniversary Prize for Higher and Further Education for “ Ionic Liquids: A Green Solution for Pollution ” ). Their work has also been formally recognized by the G8 nations (QUILL is the UK focus for the International Green Network), and the European Union (QUILL is a Marie - Curie Centre). It has attracted over £ 8 million ( ∼ $ 16 million) in support.
As I explained in the chapter on the Damocles Zone, if a control element such as, say, the blood - clotting agent activated when we cut ourselves exhibits too little instability, it might exert its effect for too long, resulting, say, in our entire blood supply rapidly coagulating following even a minor accident.
The antibody was then injected into a body, and activated in the desired area only by illuminating it with low - intensity light (soft ultraviolet). Thus, the group showed that tumors in mice could be killed merely by shining a handheld light onto a particular location, and thereby became the fi rst to demonstrate that antibodies can indeed be activated by light (Self and Thompson 1996 ).
antibodies are directed against elements of the immune system (such as T cells), this means that immunity can be directed around the body by light. When used in conjunction with tumor - targeting antibodies, their inherent specifi city can be dramatically increased.
When water is rapidly cooled (at rates ∼ 10 6 K/s), freezing is avoided, and at temperatures below ∼ 140 K becomes a noncrystalline solid; that is, a glass. * Glassy water is probably the most common form of water in the universe. It is observed as a frost on interstellar dust and constitutes the bulk of matter in comets.
Stanley et al. have also developed a theoretical model for this transition.
Stanley is a prolifi c author, and has pursued many interdisciplinary studies at the interfaces between physics and chemistry, physics and medicine, and even physics and fi nance. His papers have been cited 30,000 times, and his Hirsch index is 88. Only fi ve other physicists have a higher index.
stability of bridges under wind and rain excitations, friction forces on rotating drill strings, and fatigue damage to undersea marine risers due to the periodic emission of vortices.
Max Planck ’ s work that led to the discovery of energy quantization
peak of a “ golden age ”
maser (microwave amplifi cation by stimulated emission of radiation)
Bell Laboratories, and their collaboration led to the optical version of the maser — the laser. Townes was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 for these discoveries
He announced that he would use his 20/20 foresight to describe the powerful discoveries that would enrich the coming twentieth century. “ However, your language does not yet contain the words I need to describe the future, ” he said, so he put a spell on the audience that conjured visions of energy quantization, relativity theory, atomic and nuclear structure, quantum mechanics, and molecular biology to give some impressions of the sciences that might shortly come. With mounting excitement, he outlined some of the magical technologies that might stem from them: magnetic resonance imaging and a wealth of other medical diagnostics, lasers, nuclear power, computers, telecommunications, and genetic manipulation. You are not wizards. ” These last words came in an intense growl. Then he disappeared, and I woke up.
Diamond concludes that the forest fi nally disappeared by about 1600 to provide the most extreme example of forest destruction in the Pacific. the island ’ s ecology is totally dependent on trees, and demand for them eventually outstripped Nature ’ s supply. Without trees, migrating birds could not nest and a vital food supply vanished. Without trees, the islanders could not build long - range canoes, and so deep - sea fi sh, dolphins, porpoises, and tuna became inaccessible.
Statue building was apparently the principal mode of competition among the island ’ s dozen or so factions. If one faction withdrew from the statue - building race, it would effectively be throwing in the towel. The leadership might have pointed out that the island still had a viable number of trees and a much larger number of saplings. We do not have to worry, therefore, their leaders might have said, the saplings will grow in due course and more than replace the trees we take.
Damocles Zone (see Chapter 1 ). Once tree cover had fallen below a certain critical level, the islanders ’ fate would have been sealed.
It is possible that my message may be seen as elitist and of interest only to those very few scientists who might be putative members of a twenty - fi rst century Planck Club. That interpretation would be wrong. One of the themes here is that almost every serious researcher is at some time in a career capable of taking those fateful steps that might lead to a great discovery or the creation of penetrating new insight. They might then need to draw on vast reserves of courage and determination, and perhaps also a little luck if they are to make progress. At any one time, of course, the proportion of researchers ready to seize that possibly once - in - a - lifetime opportunity will be very small, so if they are prevented from doing so the democratic pressure they can exert is insignifi cant.
Collapse and instability are never far away. The world is generally a pleasant and predictable place only because of the feedback mechanisms that usually tame the instabilities. My conjecture is that at the highest social levels creativity provides the vital feedback that keeps societies and civilizations healthy. Crushing it, as was done during the Dark Ages, for example, pushes us into that fateful Damocles Zone and makes us highly vulnerable.
The temperature of the core, for example, is uncertain to about 1000 ° C. Earth ’ s magnetic fi eld has declined about 20% in the last hundred years, and it is possible that we are seeing the prelude to one of the periodic magnetic - pole f l ips that occur on average about every million years.
As Earth warms, for example, evaporation of water vapor — another greenhouse gas — should increase thereby increasing global warming, but which also should increase the rate of cloud formation. Clouds increase Earth ’ s refl ectivity, and hence reduce the Sun ’ s heat arriving at the surface.
Scientists willingly gave up their freedom during World War II to serve their countries, and their contributions in such areas as radar, communications, code breaking, and the atomic bomb were crucial. That directed management - by objectives mode could easily have become the norm as it was so obviously successful
demands for funds outstripping supply
Venture Researchers were phenomenally successful. At least 14 groups or individuals made transformative discoveries, but their proposals had all been rejected by the usual funding agencies.
Growth depends on technical change, but management by objectives and other instruments of bureaucracy are strangling scientifi c research,
we could synthesize the elixir that perpetuates civilization indefi nitely
these controls maintain human body temperature at approximately 37 ° C independently of whether we are resting, sitting in a steaming sauna, or engaged in vigorous exercise. At the cellular level, cells are constantly dividing and reproducing, of course, processes that even in healthy people may frequently and hopefully transiently go out of control. If uncontrolled growth persists, it would lead to tumors and cancers, but a fully functioning immune systems will quickly restore growth to its normal levels. At the molecular level, regulation is similarly complex. As John Maddox puts it: “ A cell is a self - regulating biochemical democracy in which the several parts are continually casting votes in the form of the chemical signals they transmit.
believe half-truths as gospels
But where is the proof for your assertion? ” As the eighteenth - century Adam Smith had offered none, his radical views could have been safely dismissed as merely an expression of opinion. However, a suffi cient number of infl uential people appreciated the value of his thinking, and so Smith ’ s ideas took root.
Life expectancy at birth in 2000, for example, was some 77 years in the United Kingdom and the United States, while it was some 37 years in Zambia. * In contrast, in 1842 in Manchester (UK), for example, a professional male had a life expectancy at birth of 38 years (Wood 1991 ), whereas that of a manual worker was only 17 years.
A reasonable reaction in those circumstances would have been for the Unit to seek, say, a moratorium on statue building for a few years. They could have told the authorities that if they continued to cut down trees, then one day, probably without warning, they would not only have to manage with fewer trees but with none at all, with all the grave consequences that would entail. Had the authorities heeded my imaginary Ecology Research Unit ’ s warnings, they might then have agreed on a reasonable rate of stone - statue building, entry into the Damocles Zone might have been avoided, and Jared Diamond might have written about a sustainable success rather than a catastrophic collapse.
Another cause for concern is that the world ’ s economic systems are becoming increasingly monolithic. This tendency might be stimulated by the emerging economies ’ wish to increase their share of global prosperity.
The Economist, in a “ Survey of the world economy ” published on September 16, 2006, said: Last year the combined output of emerging economies reached an important milestone: it accounted for more than half of total world GDP (measured at purchasing - power parity). This means that the rich countries no longer dominate the global economy. The developing countries also have a far greater infl uence on the performance of the rich economies than is generally realized. Emerging economies are driving global growth and having a big impact on developed countries ’ infl ation, interest rates, wages and profi ts.
Thus, for example, in 2006, China became the largest holder of foreign exchange reserves, * and the British steel industry was transferred to the ownership of Indian capitalists.
the most important problems facing humanity include terrorism, the rise in religious fundamentalism, pollution and global warming, poverty and disease, the security and availability of energy supplies
smart people like to be near smart people
Max Planck must have turned in his grave.
Before the 1950s, the main sources of economic growth were thought to be
• Capital
• Labor
• Resources
output per hour of work
His study of American growth between 1929 and 1982 concluded that education per worker accounts for 30% of the increase in output per worker
Linus Pauling had unconventional views on vitamin C; Albert von Szent - Gy ö rgyi had unconventional views on almost everything; Barbara McClintock ’ s transformative ideas on jumping genes were ignored for years, as was Peter Mitchell ’ s chemiosmotic theory. All of these latter scientists eventually won Nobel Prizes
a universal language like Esperanto
The twentieth century was strongly infl uenced by the work of a relatively small number of scientists:
Max Planck Discovered that energy is quantized
Ernest Rutherford Founded nuclear physics
Albert Einstein Photoelectric effect; special and general relativity
Paul A. M. Dirac Predicted existence of positrons
Wolfgang Pauli Exclusion principle; predicted existence of neutrinos
Erwin Schr ö dinger Founded wave mechanics
Werner K. Heisenberg Founded quantum mechanics; uncertainty principle
Alexander Fleming Discovered penicillin
Enrico Fermi Built fi rst nuclear reactor
Oswald T. Avery Discovered that DNA is the genetic molecule
Linus Pauling Seminal work on the nature of the chemical bond
Dorothy C. Hodgkin Pioneered X - ray diffraction techniques
Max Perutz Discovered structure of hemoglobin
Francis Crick and James D. Watson Discovered double - helix structure of DNA
John Bardeen, Walter H. Brattain, and William B. Shockley Invented the transistor
Dennis Gabor Invented holography
Charles H. Townes Invented the maser
Barbara McClintock Discovered transposons
James Black Discovered how to design targeted pharmaceutical drugs
Sydney Brenner Pioneered molecular biology
Science , one of the world ’ s most authoritative journals, has in recent years been publishing their year - end nomination for “ Breakthrough of the Year ”
The United States has 17 of the world ’ s top 20 universities, and employs 70% of the world ’ s Nobel Prize winners
The Nobel Prize is awarded “ to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefi t on mankind. ”
I am reminded of the joke about the schoolboy who claimed that spiders ’ ears were in their legs. To prove it, he produced a spider, yelled at it, and watched it run away. He then caught the spider and cruelly pulled off its legs. He yelled at it again, but this time it stayed put. “ You see, it can ’ t hear me now, ” he said.
current dogma maintains that the universe was created at some specifi c moment some 13.6 billion years ago. It then requires an almost immediate but transient expansion at speeds vastly * exceeding the velocity of light in order that predictions from current theories can be made compatible with what we actually observe.
*Apparently, the expansion of the universe during the brief infl ationary period is required to proceed at a speed exceeding 10 20 times the velocity of light.
Anders Wimo estimated * in 2006 that worldwide costs for dementia care were $ 248 billion a year.
freedom is as essential to scientists as legs are to a spider.
Only trace quantities of that vitamin are required for survival, but on the other hand, taking none at all would soon terminate a person ’ s existence.
Pasteur in microbiology and immunology, and Perkin with dyestuffs searched for and achieved industrial applications for their research
In the consultancy fi eld, the old adage was that successful consultants merely delivered the advice their customers wanted to hear.
computer science (as opposed to computing science), was a meaningless term because it was like referring to surgery as “ knife science. ”
Quantifi ed the rules describing distributed intelligence in animals
Bose – Einstein statistics . Furthermore, they demonstrated that below a certain critical temperature a collection (a gas) of these particles — “ bosons ” — could undergo a transition to a single quantum state described by a simple, macroscopic parameter, and usually referred to as a condensate . It was already known that superconducting behavior occurred in certain metallic materials at suffi ciently low temperatures, and that it closely resembled the dissipationless behavior of electrons bound in atoms and molecules. In the 1930s superconductivity was joined by a new stable mate — superfl uidity
took some of the wind from their sails
Pg 145 diagram of Pythagorean Proof
If electrons are free to move within the crystal lattice, the material is a metal; whereas for insulators, the electrons are always bound. However, it is possible that all materials will be conductors (i.e., metals) if the external pressure is high enough. Liquid hydrogen, for example, is usually an insulator, but becomes metallic at pressures above approximately 2 million atmospheres. The planet Jupiter, the largest of the solar system ’ s gas giants, is composed mainly of hydrogen and helium. These elements may become superconducting at the intense pressures of the planet ’ s interior, and may be the source of its high magnetic fi eld.
free to follow their science wherever it might lead them
(Tofts and Franks 1992 ), and led to the fi rst application of that calculus to any fi eld outside computation.
Pendry was very much a rising star
Catalysis is one of the most important fi elds in chemistry
liquid CO 2 for extracting caffeine from coffee
regenerate (e.g., nerve tissue)
His work has been recognized by the president of the United States (awarded the 2005 Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award), and by the Queen (awarded the 2006 Queen ’ s Anniversary Prize for Higher and Further Education for “ Ionic Liquids: A Green Solution for Pollution ” ). Their work has also been formally recognized by the G8 nations (QUILL is the UK focus for the International Green Network), and the European Union (QUILL is a Marie - Curie Centre). It has attracted over £ 8 million ( ∼ $ 16 million) in support.
As I explained in the chapter on the Damocles Zone, if a control element such as, say, the blood - clotting agent activated when we cut ourselves exhibits too little instability, it might exert its effect for too long, resulting, say, in our entire blood supply rapidly coagulating following even a minor accident.
The antibody was then injected into a body, and activated in the desired area only by illuminating it with low - intensity light (soft ultraviolet). Thus, the group showed that tumors in mice could be killed merely by shining a handheld light onto a particular location, and thereby became the fi rst to demonstrate that antibodies can indeed be activated by light (Self and Thompson 1996 ).
antibodies are directed against elements of the immune system (such as T cells), this means that immunity can be directed around the body by light. When used in conjunction with tumor - targeting antibodies, their inherent specifi city can be dramatically increased.
When water is rapidly cooled (at rates ∼ 10 6 K/s), freezing is avoided, and at temperatures below ∼ 140 K becomes a noncrystalline solid; that is, a glass. * Glassy water is probably the most common form of water in the universe. It is observed as a frost on interstellar dust and constitutes the bulk of matter in comets.
Stanley et al. have also developed a theoretical model for this transition.
Stanley is a prolifi c author, and has pursued many interdisciplinary studies at the interfaces between physics and chemistry, physics and medicine, and even physics and fi nance. His papers have been cited 30,000 times, and his Hirsch index is 88. Only fi ve other physicists have a higher index.
stability of bridges under wind and rain excitations, friction forces on rotating drill strings, and fatigue damage to undersea marine risers due to the periodic emission of vortices.
February 19, 2021
'Because science is original it is also unpredictable: neither the provenance of a new idea nor its ultimate applications can reliably be foreseen by scientific policy-makers. The tasks of science policy are of another kind: to maintain the environment necessary for scientific discovery.'
July 6, 2025
2-Star Review of Scientific Freedom: The Elixir of Civilization
There is no question that Donald Braben has walked the walk. His Venture Research initiative at BP in the 1980s backed scientists who had been rejected by traditional peer review, and some of them went on to produce field-defining breakthroughs. That includes the discovery of the C60 carbon molecule, which later won a Nobel Prize. Braben’s experience is rare, his convictions are sincere, and the problem he identifies is real. Science is increasingly governed by short-term metrics and risk-averse committees. Braben’s central claim is that without true freedom for unorthodox thinkers, we will stagnate. The problem is, he has written a book that feels more like a briefing packet than a call to arms.
The Stripe Press hardcover edition is undeniably beautiful. As with all their books, the production quality is top-notch. But form cannot save content, and in this case, the book is dry, repetitive, and strangely passionless given its subject. It reads like a lecture prepared for university administrators. The language is formal and over-explained, with key points repeated again and again with only minor variations. There are no real characters, no narrative momentum, and very little emotional weight. For a book about bold and unfunded ideas, it plays things surprisingly safe.
One of the strangest choices is the inclusion of poster-style summaries of past research proposals. These are meant to showcase the kind of thinking Venture Research supported, but they come across as cryptic and abstract. With no surrounding context or storytelling, they feel disconnected from the reader. Rather than inspiring curiosity, they land more like exhibits in a bureaucratic museum.
This wouldn’t be as frustrating if there weren’t other, better books that explore the same territory. Boom, also published by Stripe Press, tackles the cultural and institutional stagnation of science with far more clarity and energy. It is more concise, more readable, and gives a better sense of the stakes. If you’re only reading one Stripe Press book on this subject, Boom is the better choice by a wide margin.
Beyond that, several other books illuminate the conditions of breakthrough science in ways that are far more compelling. Skunk Works by Ben Rich is a riveting account of how Lockheed’s legendary team built the future in secret, with full autonomy and intense focus. It is science in motion, not science in theory. Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned by Kenneth Stanley and Joel Lehman makes a philosophical and empirical case for why we cannot optimize our way to progress. It’s a sharp critique of objective-driven systems and a deep exploration of creative search. The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch tackles the role of explanation and the nature of progress in science, philosophy, and society. It is dense, but electric. All of these books manage to be thoughtful while also being alive. Braben’s feels clinical by comparison.
That would be forgivable if the world were not in the position it is in. As of 2025, the sense that science has stalled is no longer fringe. From energy to medicine to climate to AI safety, we are circling existential problems with nowhere near the momentum required to solve them. We have the computing power, the tools, and the talent. What we lack is the will to build systems that allow people to explore the unknown. Braben is right to say that we are suffocating the kind of research that changes everything. But his book does not break through. It reminds us that the system is broken, but it does not make us feel that it must be changed.
Braben’s own story deserved a better telling. His ideas needed more fire. This could have been a great book. Instead, it is a well-meaning report dressed as a manifesto. The warning is there, but the urgency is not.
There is no question that Donald Braben has walked the walk. His Venture Research initiative at BP in the 1980s backed scientists who had been rejected by traditional peer review, and some of them went on to produce field-defining breakthroughs. That includes the discovery of the C60 carbon molecule, which later won a Nobel Prize. Braben’s experience is rare, his convictions are sincere, and the problem he identifies is real. Science is increasingly governed by short-term metrics and risk-averse committees. Braben’s central claim is that without true freedom for unorthodox thinkers, we will stagnate. The problem is, he has written a book that feels more like a briefing packet than a call to arms.
The Stripe Press hardcover edition is undeniably beautiful. As with all their books, the production quality is top-notch. But form cannot save content, and in this case, the book is dry, repetitive, and strangely passionless given its subject. It reads like a lecture prepared for university administrators. The language is formal and over-explained, with key points repeated again and again with only minor variations. There are no real characters, no narrative momentum, and very little emotional weight. For a book about bold and unfunded ideas, it plays things surprisingly safe.
One of the strangest choices is the inclusion of poster-style summaries of past research proposals. These are meant to showcase the kind of thinking Venture Research supported, but they come across as cryptic and abstract. With no surrounding context or storytelling, they feel disconnected from the reader. Rather than inspiring curiosity, they land more like exhibits in a bureaucratic museum.
This wouldn’t be as frustrating if there weren’t other, better books that explore the same territory. Boom, also published by Stripe Press, tackles the cultural and institutional stagnation of science with far more clarity and energy. It is more concise, more readable, and gives a better sense of the stakes. If you’re only reading one Stripe Press book on this subject, Boom is the better choice by a wide margin.
Beyond that, several other books illuminate the conditions of breakthrough science in ways that are far more compelling. Skunk Works by Ben Rich is a riveting account of how Lockheed’s legendary team built the future in secret, with full autonomy and intense focus. It is science in motion, not science in theory. Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned by Kenneth Stanley and Joel Lehman makes a philosophical and empirical case for why we cannot optimize our way to progress. It’s a sharp critique of objective-driven systems and a deep exploration of creative search. The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch tackles the role of explanation and the nature of progress in science, philosophy, and society. It is dense, but electric. All of these books manage to be thoughtful while also being alive. Braben’s feels clinical by comparison.
That would be forgivable if the world were not in the position it is in. As of 2025, the sense that science has stalled is no longer fringe. From energy to medicine to climate to AI safety, we are circling existential problems with nowhere near the momentum required to solve them. We have the computing power, the tools, and the talent. What we lack is the will to build systems that allow people to explore the unknown. Braben is right to say that we are suffocating the kind of research that changes everything. But his book does not break through. It reminds us that the system is broken, but it does not make us feel that it must be changed.
Braben’s own story deserved a better telling. His ideas needed more fire. This could have been a great book. Instead, it is a well-meaning report dressed as a manifesto. The warning is there, but the urgency is not.
May 23, 2025
This is with high likelihood one of the best books I've read this month, if not year. Read the seventh chapter first. READ THE SEVENTH CHAPTER FIRST. Rest of the book goes slowly but the points made are not unimportant.
I might find it hard to measure whether the rate of "Planck-level" contributions is measurably increased by such an enterprise as Braben. However, it's undeniable that the average "interestingness" of the contributions compared to the average even in top venues is exceptional, especially from the perspective of a lay science enjoyer.
Other kudos for the book:
- Branching factor of 6 (#books added to list per read, 2-3 is typical for good nonfiction)
- Cogent analysis of the contributing factors to exceptional research in aggregate, and the impact it has on economics especially divided by pre- and post-Nixon era
I might find it hard to measure whether the rate of "Planck-level" contributions is measurably increased by such an enterprise as Braben. However, it's undeniable that the average "interestingness" of the contributions compared to the average even in top venues is exceptional, especially from the perspective of a lay science enjoyer.
Other kudos for the book:
- Branching factor of 6 (#books added to list per read, 2-3 is typical for good nonfiction)
- Cogent analysis of the contributing factors to exceptional research in aggregate, and the impact it has on economics especially divided by pre- and post-Nixon era
June 25, 2024
It seems that we need Javier Milei for saving scientific research from the peer review system
Contrary to other reviews the book is packed with empirical evidence
The status quo is threated proposing long-term approaches to scientific research by encouraging fearless freedom seeking minsets, prioriticing revolutionary-ambitious over safe-controlled proposals funding agencies promote
TR research means more revolutionary scientific research by losing less money to the peer review international organization
As we easily dismiss incetives for intermediating public flows tend to be far from altruistic
Contrary to other reviews the book is packed with empirical evidence
The status quo is threated proposing long-term approaches to scientific research by encouraging fearless freedom seeking minsets, prioriticing revolutionary-ambitious over safe-controlled proposals funding agencies promote
TR research means more revolutionary scientific research by losing less money to the peer review international organization
As we easily dismiss incetives for intermediating public flows tend to be far from altruistic
July 31, 2021
Interesting ideas on how transformative/venture research should be encouraged and funded. Especially interesting is the author's description on the creativity v/s efficiency trade-off (he uses various names throughout the book). Also a good history on how research was funded in early to mid 20th century v/s now - less freedom, less individualism, more focus on consensus, excessive focus on precise objectives & measurements. All supported through interesting stats and comparisons on the nature of inventions and discoveries in the two periods
December 29, 2023
I made it 20% through the book and do not plan to finish it.
I personally believe that anyone who has been exposed to academia in any way,
even if just through films, would not get much out of this book. I do not
recommend it to anyone.
The message delivered by the author is informed important. However, it is delivered
in an un-engaging, long-winded, repetitive, conceptual way. I feel that this book
would be much more impactful if it were simply be a 20 minute TED talk,
focused on the numbers, graphs and charts.
I personally believe that anyone who has been exposed to academia in any way,
even if just through films, would not get much out of this book. I do not
recommend it to anyone.
The message delivered by the author is informed important. However, it is delivered
in an un-engaging, long-winded, repetitive, conceptual way. I feel that this book
would be much more impactful if it were simply be a 20 minute TED talk,
focused on the numbers, graphs and charts.
August 18, 2023
The main concern of this book is nothing special: red tape and jumping through academia hoops hinders scientific progress. The author goes deep into the issue and it’s origins (mid 20th century), but not in a particularly interesting way.
The breakdown of several different projects/efforts that overcame the bureaucracy was pretty cool.
Starting to think that whoever curates the Stripe Press collection is a very anti-regulation person. Seeing a pattern in all these books.
The breakdown of several different projects/efforts that overcame the bureaucracy was pretty cool.
Starting to think that whoever curates the Stripe Press collection is a very anti-regulation person. Seeing a pattern in all these books.
April 21, 2023
This book is very boring with very little insights and could've been a better blogpost or something. The fact that the author worked at BP and sprinkles all sorts of climate change denial throughout the book is also a little too in the nose for me.
April 10, 2024
An interesting book about the huge actual difficulty to find sources of funding to support the way forward for ambitious young researchers with the roots to the future. "Those exceptionally rare scientists whose revolutionary work can open new horizons can do so only if they have total freedom. The routes to new types of knowledge can be deceptively disguised, and may appear to ordinary mortals as unimportant byways leading nowhere."
The total freedom represents a "must" for the author and a the results of research in 70s are a proof of this.
The total freedom represents a "must" for the author and a the results of research in 70s are a proof of this.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 14, 2023
Basically, don’t limit scientists in any way (no deadline, no pitching, no business pressure), and only then we can achieve a breakthrough in anything.
Don’t know why the boom is so long though.
Don’t know why the boom is so long though.
February 1, 2024
Though important and an agreeable premise, it’s just too long, boring, and chaotic.
July 15, 2025
This book contains heretical ideas that we should probably implement. Down with peer review and bureaucratic red tape! All hail the pioneers!
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews