I completely agree that Dr. Minsky overstated the need to get rid of big business in science. Business is a catalyst for inquiry and makes science meaningful to the masses. However there is a component of Marvin Minsky's big business lament which deserves greater attention.

With some exceptions, big business' involvement in science is typically applied research. Even in those corporate research facilities where some pure research is conducted, there is pressure to tie the research to a future product opportunity. This typically means a timeline for application within the next decade or two. If the research happens to result in deeper, more enduring insights then that is merely icing on the cake. However, "enduring scientific insight" rarely succeeds as the primary research objective when corporate funding is sought. As the applied corporate research dollars and influence have increased, support for pure research, and those who would make it their life's work, has shrunk dramatically.

Pure research fundamentally differs from applied research in its motivation. Pure research gives little, if any, thought to productization when choosing a line of inquiry. Its search for breakthroughs follows where the pure science points rather than where the opportunity for productization points. Imagine if Issac Newton could only get support to investigate those areas most likely to yield products viable in the markets of the late 17th century. A few more interesting product concepts would've been produced but how much longer would it have taken humanity to get to the moon or the microchip?

This is the dilema many, especially young, talented researchers face today. In order to apply their skills they require funding. Most of that funding today comes with corporate productization biases and only secondary attention given to pure science objectives. We live in an age where great products are plentiful and happen every few days. Can we say the same about the health of pure research efforts and the potential breakthroughs which will underlie future generations' opportunities for better lives? Are we pushing the next Issac Newton to build a better Alexa rather than creating the equivalent of Newtonian Physics for the human mind?

These are important questions which currently, even in an election year, are not getting the attention they warrant. We have some of our best and brighest (e.g. Hawking, Musk, N.D. Tyson...) raising issues about the impacts of mind-science and technology. The need has never been greater for pure scientific investigation into the science of mind (both natural and artificial).

Should we get rid of big business from science, or even reduce its contribution? Absolutely not.

Should we greatly increase support and options for pure research with no productization strings? Absolutely yes!

Thanks Rowan for highlighting this important topic and the work your group is doing in advancing machine intelligence, collaboration support and IoT. A healthy alliance between corporate R&D and pure science is at the heart of humanity's future. The deeper truths revealed by pure research insure that social and economic benefits of applied R&D can be harvested for perpetuity. It is the recent neglect of pure research's role in the scientific ecosystem that I believe Marvin Minsky was trying to highlight and thereby instigate this conversation. I hope more corporate and public leaders start getting involved in this topic.

Even now Dr. Minsky continues to further the quest for greater insight and better solutions.

Rest In Peace Dr. Minsky.

Thanks again Rowan for considering the key issues of our time and how they relate to the technologies your teams are creating. Very refreshing.