Have we killed Fundamental Science?

In Canada recent changes to government funding programs has resulted in protests proclaiming the "Death of Scientific Evidence". Adorned with signs, coffins, and white lab coats, many Canadian researchers were protesting against censorship of environmental research results (which I also oppose). However, many academics associate with these sentiments because federal funding programs have placed much more emphasis on academics working with industry in recent years (which I also support). Curiosity driven research funding is much harder to obtain than industry supported research. For example, Industry backed NSERC Engage grants can be submitted any time with over 90% acceptance. This is not only happening in Canada but in other parts of the world as well (e.g. the CDT in UK). So this begs the question:

Are academics are at the mercy of corporations, and no longer able do fundamental science? 

Many academics are surprised when they hear that industry is simultaneously being held to academic standards. Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) tax incentives requires corporations to resolve scientific or technological uncertainty, adopt hypothesis testing/scientific method, and demonstrate advancement in science and technology. 

It seems as though corporations are being told to be more like academics.

We need academics to lead in fundamental research and industry to lead in delivering customer value. While the novelty focused review process pushes academics towards niche areas of low societal impact, dwindling stock prices drive industry leaders to focus on short term results rather than long term profitability. 

It is simply not true that government and industry direction hinders fundamental research. Consider government directed projects in cyptography and the radar during WWII. The Google Voice and Siri interfaces we use today would not have been possible without directed fundamental research in Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language Processing from ARPA from 1956-1974. 

We hope that in the future the success of a professor will not only be measured by the length of their publication list, or the number of graduate students, but on their ability to listen to the needs of their stakeholders: the taxpayers.

The Job Hunt Begins

Great news! I'm almost finished my PhD and I am now getting ready to apply for jobs for the fall. I'm planning on having three waves of job applications, and I just completed my first wave yesterday.

I spent the most of the day writing these emails, editing them, getting friends and family to read them and editing them some more. Basically, I had six Gmail tabs open and was constantly moving back and forth. My first wave is composed of people that I know personally and that I have met numerous times at various industry, academic and general conferences and conventions.

I sent out all six emails at exactly 10:48pm EST. That way everyone on my first wave has an equal opportunity. I jokingly say to friends that I'm an "equal opportunity interviewee."

Most of my experiences thus far have been academically focused around inventing new interaction techniques and publishing papers. During the next steps of my job search I would very much like to learn about the innovation side of this equation. In particular, what does it take to make novel technologies accessible to a general audience?

Thus, when searching for companies I am looking for companies that will advocate for the research that I am doing internally within the organization. I am also looking for my supervisor to be transparent about the needs and direction of the company so that I can better target my research. I am also interested in staying connected with the external communication (academic and industry) so that I can see how my work compares to other leading firms in the field.

My goal is not to work as a member of a team in a industry setting, where I'm interested in learning about a company's values so that I better target my own research and development.