michael_nielsen

this is really good -- liked your methodology, and anticipation and inoculation of counter-arguments -- but despite the v short section on computer science, think you missed a fundamental thing:

: which is, the role of tools -- ie, discoveries that generate more invention and innovation on top of them vs. other wholesale discoveries themselves;

the two later possibs you mention (CRISPR and AI) are more important for this reason -- that they're tools, and platforms to build on, more than just self-contained discoveries -- than any other reason

my only other gripe w the piece would be missing an area (that is missed by many) when it comes to science progress: *material science* (this is the #1 thing I got out of PARC, that and a love of MRS meeting annals;) -- for instance, progress in flexible electronics and more

and that has other policy implications because it suggests a different, and I think far more important recommendation than "more funding" or different grant prize-rewarding mechanisms:

which is, the importance of an "architect" in helping architect an *ecosystem* for growing a particular area of science and invention (for instance, with matsci and flex electronics it would be the enabling materials required)

[I'm not typically a believer in top down design but this is the rare case where I think old-school govt incentives in research would work well]