Scan barcode
A review by tylercritchfield
How Innovation Works: And Why It Flourishes in Freedom by
4.0
A solid overview of innovation. Mostly filled with examples and then patterns common to them. I enjoyed learning more about each story and then how they applied to innovation in general. I appreciated the author didn't just stick to the typical instances many of us are familiar with. He explores medicine, biogenetics, communication, transportation, etc.
Main takeaways:
- Innovation always takes time. There are no eureka moments.
- Serendipity is key, which means we need environments that give luck a chance.
- We tend to over-hype new innovations in the short run and under-hype them in the long run.
- We expect innovation to mean new or better things when more often than not it means the same things/processes in less time or with fewer resources.
- Ridley argues that patents and IP disputes actually limit innovation and should be done away with. I'm not sure he explored this enough, but it is an interesting idea.
A couple of thought-provoking passages related to modern science and innovation:
In 1969 the physicist Robert Wilson, testifying to the US Senate about funding for a particle accelerator, was asked if it would contribute to national defense. He replied, "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country, except to help make it worth defending."
There is no doubt that in recent years there has been a growing tendency among politicians to adopt the notion that science is the mother of invention and that this is the main justification for funding science. This seems to me a pity. Not just because it misreads history, but because it devalues science. To reject the linear model is definitely not an attack on the funding of science, let alone on science itself. Science is the greatest fruit of human achievement, bar none, and deserves rich and enthusiastic support in any civilized society, but as a worthwhile goal in its own right, not just as a way to encourage innovation. Science should be seen as the fruit rather than the seed.
Main takeaways:
- Innovation always takes time. There are no eureka moments.
- Serendipity is key, which means we need environments that give luck a chance.
- We tend to over-hype new innovations in the short run and under-hype them in the long run.
- We expect innovation to mean new or better things when more often than not it means the same things/processes in less time or with fewer resources.
- Ridley argues that patents and IP disputes actually limit innovation and should be done away with. I'm not sure he explored this enough, but it is an interesting idea.
A couple of thought-provoking passages related to modern science and innovation:
In 1969 the physicist Robert Wilson, testifying to the US Senate about funding for a particle accelerator, was asked if it would contribute to national defense. He replied, "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country, except to help make it worth defending."
There is no doubt that in recent years there has been a growing tendency among politicians to adopt the notion that science is the mother of invention and that this is the main justification for funding science. This seems to me a pity. Not just because it misreads history, but because it devalues science. To reject the linear model is definitely not an attack on the funding of science, let alone on science itself. Science is the greatest fruit of human achievement, bar none, and deserves rich and enthusiastic support in any civilized society, but as a worthwhile goal in its own right, not just as a way to encourage innovation. Science should be seen as the fruit rather than the seed.