There are three levels of innovation:
– Invention (Edison)
– Scientific discovery (Feynman)
– Scientific superdiscovery (Einstein)
DOWNGRADING
Invention is not a science – it’s an application of science. Labeling any research and innovation activity as a science is confusing and eventually harmful for understanding of the role of science in the prosperity of society. The labeling is downgrading the role of scientists.
NEGATIVE MONETIZATION
Inventors can capture a fraction of value they created for society by starting a business related to his invention. Edison is an example.
But even Edison is an exception from the rule. Most of inventors especially outside of the USA especially in the past was struggling to capture the fraction. Tesla is the example. The father of Albert Einstein is another example how hard it was always to capture the fraction.
Most of Americans have no clue this option available mostly NOW and mostly in the USA. Inventors outside of the USA almost never had a chance to capture the fraction of value. And some of them eventually died poor or even committed a suicide.
Now try to think how hard it is to monetize scientific discoveries and especially super discoveries. It’s not just hard it’s impossible!
Even more – history knows many examples when authors of super discoveries were a subjects of discrimination and their life and freedom was on the stake: Copernicus, Galilei, Einstein.
Therefore, the work of the super scientists are the most undervalued and the most dangerous… And the monetization for them on average is NEGATIVE.
It has to be done something to fix the issue.
It’s unfair. And stupid. Because the life and prosperity of society depends at least 1 million times more on the superdiscoveries comparing to average social activity.
We should find a way to compensate the disparity.
In order to understand how much we owe to super scientists, we need methods for assessing the benefits of discoveries in monetary terms.
According to my ugly estimates, the minimum value of the theory of relativity is about a quadrillion dollars.
How did I come to this assessment?
I tried to evaluate my invention “How to explain the speed of light for 2 year olds”
https://alec.school.blog/light
…by using a method I invented based on Steve Jobs approach:
https://alec.school.blog/value
Taking the minimum estimate of my invention as a basis, I simply assumed that Einstein’s theory of relativity should have evaluation at least a million times more.
Yes, this is such a very simple method. Yes, this method has a large error.
But I can at least give an answer to the question of the monetary evaluation of theory of relativity. And the Nobel Committee, which has a million times more resources than I do, does not have any answer to this question.
Superdiscoveries in Nobel prize world is not just underestimated but OVERLOOKED.
There are no prizes for super discoveries that changing a paradigms, because in order to identify such discoveries, methods for assessing them in monetary terms are needed.
How many methods we have for evaluation of a company. A hundreds. How many methods we have to evaluate an invention? Not many. But we can easily use the methods of evaluation of companies to evaluate inventions.
The discovery of the theory of relativity can easily be worth 1000 times more than the average Nobel-level discovery. We as a society should find a way to motivate scientists to focus on superdiscoveries.
The more they focus the more superdiscoveries will be.
Einstein prize project 