5 Responses to “The Manhattan Project Again”

1. David in Cal Says:
   June 1st, 2010 at 3:36 pm

   Unlike Steven, I have been unimpressed with Herbert. Most of his columns appear to be re-worded Democratic Party press releases. When he writes something original, as in the cited column, he’s often naive.

   The Manhattan Project worked because the country was committed to winning the war and the most brilliant scientists in the world were willing to give up their normal lives to work on the project. Furthermore, the science was already in place. Leo Szilard had already patented the chain reaction. What was left was the engineering. That was a huge job, but as least the scientists knew where they were going.

   Lawrence Livermore Lab is federally funded to do research related to nuclear energy. It’s staffed by brilliant scientists. They’ve been working on practical fusion energy for decades and gotten nowhere. I don’t know that a “Manhattan Project” would do much more than funding the Livermore scientists.

   Steven repeats an idea that has been sold by Pelosi and Read - that any sort of government spending is a stimulus. This is a dangerous myth. The exact opposite is true. Ever since the Dems took control of the Congress in 1996, government spending has increased while non-government employment decreased.

2. andrew Says:
   June 1st, 2010 at 5:58 pm

   “Ever since the Dems took control of the Congress in 1996″

   Dave, I think you mean 2006.

   “Furthermore, the science was already in place. Leo Szilard had already patented the chain reaction. What was left was the engineering. That was a huge job, but as least the scientists knew where they were going.”

   Thank you for pointing this out. The scientific breakthrough has to precede throwing piles of money at it. Seems pretty obvious to me, but sometimes the obvious is difficult for people. Just call something a new “Manhattan Project” is pure wishful thinking.

3. Andy Says:
   June 1st, 2010 at 8:12 pm

   I think you both missed the point and I have no opinion on Bob Herbert.

   I think the point Steve/Herbert is trying to make is that with a govn’t sponsored “project” to gather the brightest minds and get this country off of the crack-cocaine addition to fossil fuels, we may actually achieve the goal of energy independence rather than merely talking about achieving energy independence (and maybe stop pandering to the oil lobbyists and corporate criminals).

4. David in Cal Says:
   June 2nd, 2010 at 1:41 am

   Andy, perhaps my point was not clear. For several decades the federal government already has been sponsoring a project with some of America’s greatest minds trying to obtain energy independence through fusion. So far, this effort has not succeeded.

   Do you think Bob Herbert is aware that what he suggests is being tried right now in an effort that has gone on for several decades? The work at Lawrence Livermore Labs isn’t called “Manhattan Project”, but it pretty much follows the model that Herbert is suggesting. If Herbert isn’t aware of what the government is already doing to seek energy independance, then why should we pay any attention to him? He certainly writes well, but on this topic he appears not to know what he’s talking about.

   Herbert’s full-time job is writing around 3 op-eds per week. That should leave him plenty of time to research for his columns. Yet, his casual suggestion of “another Manhattan Project” indicates litle research. I think he could have written that entire column in a few minutes. It merely represents a hodge-podge of currently popular ideas with little or no analysis or facts to back them up.

5. Hantu13 Says:
   June 3rd, 2010 at 11:33 am

   I think Dave’s right about Herbert, not a big fan either.

   I do think he’s wrong about government research, though..

   One of our huge advantages over the rest of the world is the amount of R&D that’s done in both the private and public sector. Private R&D makes a lot of sense for near-term, high probability innovation, but most corporations are not set up for the sort of long-term, low commercial probability stuff that serves as building blocks for later commercial activity.

   The key is to have the right balance- the government should focus on funding very early stage core research. And give the private sector free reign to innovate on their own. Which is more or less what happens today.

   One of the big consulting companies (I think it was McKinsey) did a report on R&D investment a couple of years ago and their recommendation was that more nations adopt the US system.

   Fusion is something that may not end up working out, but the reward is so high that the relatively small amount of money invested is easily worth it, considering the lessons and research that will stem from even a failure.

Leave a Reply