It's not surprising this is from the early 1980s, right around the time Bayh-Dole was passed and before rampant corporatization of science really took hold, bef

It's not surprising this is from the early 1980s, right around the time Bayh-Dole was passed and before rampant corporatization of science really took hold, before the generation of profitable patents became the most important concern of leading public research institutions like MIT and the University of California. That, I suppose, is why the concept of 'academic fraud' doesn't appear once in the the talk, which is otherwise full of good general advice. However, fraudulent science is now a major problem in academia, and one of the worst took place some 15 years after this publication, at Bell Labs itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal If you're working in a lab and find the PI is fabricating data on a regular basis in order to get publications into journals, or so that they can be the first to claim a patent for a particular process, well, what's to be done? Hamming's comment doesn't really work in that case: > "Another fault is anger. Often a scientist becomes angry, and this is no way to handle things. Amusement, yes, anger, no. Anger is misdirected. You should follow and cooperate rather than struggle against the system all the time... Another thing you should look for is the positive side of things instead of the negative." Perhaps there was a Golden Age of Science in the past, when academic fraud wasn't fairly common and scientists weren't also entrepreneurs looking to market their dubious patents to large corporations for a percentage of the profits?