In fact I have spent about 25 years in a research lab, so I know that 1) a lot of stuff I struggle with has already been published and I did not know it. Even fractals and mandelbrot sets (talk about the stock market) were known about in one form or another almost 100 years ago, but no one connected the dots 2) when my controls fail, i really discovered something, so it is just a matter of doing experiments of any sort 3) doing cross border experiments, like having materials physicists doing biology and vice versa is a waste of time unless the biologist and the physicist is in the room 4)I have spent some time with tech transfer guys at national labs and there is a whole lot of unused stuff. 5) Science is slow, except when it is fast. Usually all the data for a publication is obtained in a few weeeks, although it took me a long time to convince myself I should get the experiments done. the faster it is, the more "AHA" is going on.
to me the problem is with commercialization and the difficulty in organizing, posing the commercial problem, convincing, raising money and yes building a production facility. and getting the artwork done for four color glossies might take more time than machining parts
there is a lot of neat ideas out there but to me nasal strips for breathing and whitestrips for peroxide are great inventions: cheap, easy to manufacture, and high mark ups. not exactly 50 nM biology or sub wavelength optical microscopy which is a whole lot cooler, but the market judges does it not?
other than just rambling I really do agree with all the views here. science is slow and solutions are hard. good inventions which solve commercial problems and can be undertaken with available capital are the key
