3 ms·
> Bell Labs may not have been able to commercialize all of its discoveries, but humanity certainly got a lot more than Unix and the transistor. This point illu
by EarthIsHome 6y ago
> Bell Labs may not have been able to commercialize all of its discoveries, but humanity certainly got a lot more than Unix and the transistor.
This point illustrates that human benefits and profit do not always align. If we want to focus more on making things that benefit humanity, we have change our system that runs off of profit.
- wenc 6y agoI can't say I follow that logic. It's true that human benefits and profit don't always align at all points of contact. They do align at some. Hence I don't think it's true that for-profit systems that are not focused on "making things that benefit humanity" do not actually benefit humanity. Bell Labs clearly has, even though it has had a concomitant commercial objective. Conversely, it is also not true that not-for-profit systems necessarily produce human benefits -- sure, they can, but not always. I worked in an university applied research setting for close to a decade before joining industry. I can tell you the incentives and pressures to produce something that "works in practice" and is "commercializable" (whether it is actually done or not) is much greater in industry. Not-for-profit environments are better for long-range explorations with high failure rates and uncertain outcomes, i.e. basic research. For-profit environments are better at the discipline of producing applied knowledge (whether it is actually applied or not). That said, Germany has a hybrid model called the Fraunhofer model (Fraunhofer Societies do applied research and is 70% funded by industry/government) which produced the MP3 standard. So there are alternatives. But I'm not convinced the industrial R&D model is fatally flawed.