Where Have You Gone, Bell Labs?

theodp writes "Name an industry that can produce 1 million new, high-paying jobs over the next three years, challenges BusinessWeek. You can't, because there isn't one. And that's the problem. So what's the answer? Basic research can repair the broken US business model, argues BW, saying it's the key to new, high-quality job creation. Scientific research legends like Bell Labs, Sarnoff Corp, and Xerox PARC are essentially gone, or shadows of their former selves. And while IBM, Microsoft, and HP collectively spend $17B a year on R&D, only 3%-5% of that is for basic science. In a post-9/11 world, DARPA's mission has shifted from science to tactical projects with short-term military applications. Cutting back on investment in basic science research may make great sense in the short term, but as corporations and government make the same decision to free-ride off the investments of others, society suffers the 'tragedy of the commons,' wherein multiple actors operating in their self-interest do harm to the overall public good. We've reached that point, says BW, and we're just beginning to see the consequences. The cycle needs to be reversed, and it needs to be done quickly."

One Research Lab is Still Hiring...

[ZackSchil]

They're looking for talented engineers and scientists with LOTS of imagination to take important projects from concept to reality!

Check out their website and apply if you want to turn this trend around! [go.com]

Re:Socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

well, of course, the transistor. I didn't mention the transistor because it goes without saying. But other than the transistor (and the aqueduct), what have we ever gotten out of government funded research?

Re:One Research Lab is Still Hiring...

[Alomex]

Replying to undo accidental moderation.

There is an answer!

[cbraescu1]

Name an industry that can produce 1 million new, high-paying jobs over the next three years

Government!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:No.

[Rising Ape]

But you'd have to get an equivalent level of research experience, which the PhD process provides. You could say the whole point of a PhD is a demonstration that you have acquired scientific research skills. And since you usually can't do basic research without one, you have quite the chicken and egg. Product development doesn't require one, but that's a different set of skills.

Re:No.

[Rising Ape]

I'm not sure where you are, but where I live the conditions for science PhD students aren't that bad. Sure, you get less money than you would going straight to a job in industry, although more like a factor of 2 than the 4-6 you quote. My hours overall were probably similar, but more flexible. The postdoc jobs are again probably not as well paid as industry, but not by anything like your factor 4-6.

But the jobs just aren't *there* at the moment. Industry jobs leave me with a bit of a sour taste from what I've seen when interviewing and heard from others but I may just have to sell my soul and suck it up.

Re:Is basic research mined out?

[Rising Ape]

You mention basic research in your first paragraph, but then talk about product development in the rest. That's not basic research, that's applied research or product development. There's still plenty to discover in the basic sciences. Turning it into products may be more difficult but that's hardly the point.

I'm somewhat used to Slashdot not caring about science unless it can be used to make some cool gadget, but please let's not forget that's not what it's supposed to be about.

Re:Greentech!

[Rising Ape]

But a very large upfront use of resources was required to produce it, possibly more than will be saved, even in the very long term. I'm using resources more generally here to include human labour, manufacturing capacity, etc.

There's a difference between something early in its development that's expensive now because of that, and something that can never be made effective, and there's good reason to think that microgeneration is in the latter category.

Re:Surprising

[anagama]

For example, I cite the power of extractive and fossil energy interests in discouraging broad funding of research in distributed and/or alternative energy sources over the last 40 years.

Also, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "cite". ... When you "cite" something, usually it means you're going to provide a reference of some kind.

Let me introduce you to the concept of eloquence [merriam-webster.com] (2nd half of def 2). Very few pedants have any hope of eloquence. That said, GP did a nice job creatively making his point while using the word "cite [merriam-webster.com]" in a pedantically pure manner (see def 4). You simply are not fully aware of what "cite" means.

As for this post -- I'm being pedantic myself so do not look for it to be interesting or eloquent. This post is snarky -- something we have enough of in the world as it is, but I am posting it anyway because I don't have mod points to mod GP up ... he's at +5 anyway.