5 ms·

Bell did science for science's sake, not just for the telecom industry, and that's what was really unique about them, I think. Specifically, I remember reading

Bell did science for science's sake, not just for the telecom industry, and that's what was really unique about them, I think. Specifically, I remember reading an article a while back that talked about Bell Labs being the leading employer of Physicists in private industry at one time. There's not a lot of companies like that anymore, except Google (vicariously) and places like IBM's Watson Research Center.

loewenskind 16y ago
A lot of places use to invest heavily in research. The modern desktop came from the research lab of a printer company! These days the big researchers are probably IBM and Microsoft (SPJ, 'nuff said). Sun was also very big (they did all kinds of very interesting work, like the Self language for example) but it looks like that's over now.
juiceandjuice 16y ago
Interesting blog post regarding this: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2009/08/we-miss-you-bel.html http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2009/08/we-miss-y... Slight Tangent: Before I got my BS in Applied Physics, I did a lot of research in experimental astroparticle physics. I learned a lot of interdisciplinary stuff, and I thought those combinations would easily land me at least a ~40k job doing something (programming, electronics stuff, whatever). Turned out I was wrong, and I couldn't find a job anywhere in my hometown (even though I could run circles around any of the new CS grads in most languages) I learned a hard lesson that I thought would haunt me for the next decade: People don't want to hire scientists, they only want engineers. I got a shitty $15/hr part time job as a test tech, got sick of that and then realized I couldn't get into grad school for financial reasons. I had a bit of money so I applied only to physics jobs at high profile schools or labs across the country (partially motivated by this site, actually). Within a week I got an email back from Stanford (SLAC) to do an interview for a developer. It turned out that I had all the right kinds of experience, and I just started last Thursday at what can only be described as the perfect job for me right now. I think most companies these days just overlook the value of research, basic science, and scientists in favor of marketing, products, and engineers. The risk that research doesn't lead to a marketable product is too high for almost every company, and that's a shame.
- cma 16y ago
  I think it is more the freerider problem; Bell didn't suffer it significantly because they held a huge monopoly, and had few other ways to expand, even if others would benefit freely from their research.
smutticus 16y ago
Science and research take time. And there is no incentive for companies to take a long term outlook on things. Everything is measured quarterly.
coliveira 16y ago
It occurs to me that if you have a big company, probably the best way to "spend money for the benefit of human kind" is supporting a research lab in this style. I think this beats even having a foundation like Bill Gates. (By the way, Gates does both things...)
icegreentea 16y ago
Remember that Bell had the advantage of the mother of all monopolies. When Bell Lab's was at its height, nothing could touch Bell. They had a monopoly that made Microsoft in the late 90s/early 00s look flimsy. I mean, they pretty much ran out of room for growth (beyond scaling with the overall growth of America).

loewenskind 16y ago

A lot of places use to invest heavily in research. The modern desktop came from the research lab of a printer company! These days the big researchers are probably IBM and Microsoft (SPJ, 'nuff said). Sun was also very big (they did all kinds of very interesting work, like the Self language for example) but it looks like that's over now.

juiceandjuice 16y ago

Interesting blog post regarding this: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2009/08/we-miss-you-bel.html http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2009/08/we-miss-y... Slight Tangent: Before I got my BS in Applied Physics, I did a lot of research in experimental astroparticle physics. I learned a lot of interdisciplinary stuff, and I thought those combinations would easily land me at least a ~40k job doing something (programming, electronics stuff, whatever). Turned out I was wrong, and I couldn't find a job anywhere in my hometown (even though I could run circles around any of the new CS grads in most languages) I learned a hard lesson that I thought would haunt me for the next decade: People don't want to hire scientists, they only want engineers. I got a shitty $15/hr part time job as a test tech, got sick of that and then realized I couldn't get into grad school for financial reasons. I had a bit of money so I applied only to physics jobs at high profile schools or labs across the country (partially motivated by this site, actually). Within a week I got an email back from Stanford (SLAC) to do an interview for a developer. It turned out that I had all the right kinds of experience, and I just started last Thursday at what can only be described as the perfect job for me right now. I think most companies these days just overlook the value of research, basic science, and scientists in favor of marketing, products, and engineers. The risk that research doesn't lead to a marketable product is too high for almost every company, and that's a shame.

cma 16y ago
I think it is more the freerider problem; Bell didn't suffer it significantly because they held a huge monopoly, and had few other ways to expand, even if others would benefit freely from their research.

smutticus 16y ago

Science and research take time. And there is no incentive for companies to take a long term outlook on things. Everything is measured quarterly.

coliveira 16y ago

It occurs to me that if you have a big company, probably the best way to "spend money for the benefit of human kind" is supporting a research lab in this style. I think this beats even having a foundation like Bill Gates. (By the way, Gates does both things...)

icegreentea 16y ago

Remember that Bell had the advantage of the mother of all monopolies. When Bell Lab's was at its height, nothing could touch Bell. They had a monopoly that made Microsoft in the late 90s/early 00s look flimsy. I mean, they pretty much ran out of room for growth (beyond scaling with the overall growth of America).