MIT Media Lab Europe: An Obituary

David R writes "Media Lab Europe, offspring of the famous MIT Media Lab, is closing its doors forever, as announced today. The corporate funding strategy hasn't worked out. Strangled by the stopped river of Irish government funding, the lab ceases its operations. Having worked there for quite some time, I can give you the gory details and a lot of background on MLE's closure. It has sure been the fanciest, geekiest and most open work, research and play environment I've seen. The moral? I think it is questionable whether basic or visionary, interdisciplinary (and often badly evaluated) research will be funded by private corporations. But secondly, European companies need a culture of sponsorship, which has existed in America for a long time."

Comments

Ruined my day

[AtariAmarok]

"Strangled by the stopped river of Irish government funding"

Thanks for putting the image of that damn Riverdance in my brain.

Re:Ruined my day

[geekoid]

Strangled Riverdance is a good thing.

I think I know why it closed

[krog]

Perhaps being right next to the Guinness brewery explains why not much work was done there.

Re:I think I know why it closed

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientist 1: "I think I'm close to a major breakthrough that will revolutionize..."

Scientist 2: "Wanna go grab a couple pints?"

Scientist 1: "Brilliant!"

Scientist 2: "Brilliant!"

Media Lab, RIP already

[Anonymous Coward]

I must prefix my bashing with an apology. I have friends at Media Lab Europe and they are nice, smart, and fun people. I hope you all find new jobs.

The media lab concept is to make a pretty toy with an amusing concept, and call it brilliant (demo or die!). The painful part is that despite looking really cool, many of these toys and instruments are nothing more than that, toys. All of the crap musical instruments, and artistic looking mobiles, as far as I'm concerned are worthless other then kitch value. Most of the concepts are not new and other than eye candy aspects have been done more completely. The end result has been that they have failed to push boundaries, failed to advance the state of the art, and seemingly failed to have any lasting value, other than to inflate the already gigantic ego of the institution.

I hear your cries already. " But what about this one example yada yada yada..." The fact of the matter is the world doesn't need a bunch of hyped egos running around spending unimaginable sums of money. The research community can do better than the media lab. We are doing better. With less money, less ego, and in the name of science, not profit. I spose we don't all have machined plastic demos with videos of children happily playing across internet 2 in 4 countries.

Oh well, RIP

Re:Media Lab, RIP already

[krog]

Judging by your post, I have no choice but to assume that you think a laser printer which can toast designs into bread using PostScript is a 'toy'.

I've got a $45,000 grilled cheese bearing the face of the Blessed Virgin that says you're wrong.

Re:Media Lab, RIP already

[khallow]

Consider the global economy competition. US workers are not doing the manufacturing, nor other minimal value added activities. Some supporters of off shoring have said that the US needs to innovate, as this is their place in the global marketplace. So what do we do? Shut down one of the places where were were innovating?

Innovation's not just discoveries and inventions, but profiting from those discoveries and inventions. MLE failed to do that. Also, reading through some of the stories, I sense that MLE had really poor control of costs. They may also had a less than competent leadership, I don't know the merits of including two members of the band, U2 on the board of directories (Bono at least appears to be a solid businessman and media expert), but having a founder of Wired magazine as Chairman should be a big warning flag.

Sponsorship

[njfuzzy]

I went to school in the UK for four years, and I didn't see any signs that Europe has less sponsorship by business. Quite a lot of Universities had labs tied to businesses, research students were paid by businesses, and so forth.

Private Funding of Research Requires a Monopoly

[fijimf]

Privately owned companies have a responsibility to deliver to their shareholders. The true test of whether a company is a monopoly or not is whether there is a willingness to fund basic research science without a myopic focus on the bottom line. Monopolies can afford this.

The evidence supporting is TJ Watson, Bell Labs, and Xerox Parc. Sadly, as the monopoly is eliminated so is the research.

And while their output hasn't been earth shattering yet, this is further evidence of Microsoft's monopoly.

Re:Private Funding of Research Requires a Monopoly

[krbvroc1]

Privately owned companies have a responsibility to deliver to their shareholders. The true test of whether a company is a monopoly or not is whether there is a willingness to fund basic research science without a myopic focus on the bottom line. Monopolies can afford this.

I think you are generalizing. I think what a monopoly does with its power is basically up to its leadership. I know of several monopoly industries who rested on their laurels and didn't innovate at all. Or where their public contribution was simply a very small token meant for public relations.

I think the problem

[stratjakt]

Was the "Irish Need Not Apply" sign they hung on the front door.

Re:WHAT?!?!

[blaberski]

Be careful, the slashdot hordes will come down upon you for insulting the utopia that is Europe over the evil devil that is America.

If you want me to read your blog, make it readable

[GGardner]

So, the fine article sounds interesting, but when I click on the link, the article has an annoying alpha-blended background peeking through onto the text. Sure, that's cool in a geeky way, but annoying enough so that I can't even finish reading the text. I wonder if this is a metaphor for the Media Lab in general -- stuff that's geeky for the sake of being cool, but kind of a flop when it hits the real world.

So are most UK lecturers.

[jd]

They earn vastly more money from industry than they do from their official jobs - just as well, given how much they're paid. The reason Industry does this is that it's still cheaper than hiring the person full-time, especially as they don't know how many times they need that person's skills, there's extra credibility if their products are seen to be associated with a famous University, and there's free advertising through the scientific press.

Universities wouldn't survive without Industry, but the control is definitely in Industry's hands. In other words, if someone wants such-and-such a product, or needs such-and-such information, then the lecturer will adapt what they are doing to fit. It is extremely rare for a University to do "pure" research any more, unless it's funded via the Government.

In the end, pure research will NEVER be funded by industry, because (by definition) you don't know what the outcome is. Applied research, where you know a great deal about the results in advance, but maybe not everything about the method, is not what many people would call "real research", but it is what gets the big money.

It is partly this reason that the British are very good at inventing new things but useless at exploiting the ideas. There's no bridge between the pure and the applied. It is rare for an idea to successfully cross from one realm into the other.

Re:So are most UK lecturers.

[tgma]

It seems to me that the situation you are describing would be a perfect environment where academics could take their discoveries and apply them in business. As you say: "if someone wants such-and-such a product, or needs such-and-such information, then the lecturer will adapt what they are doing to fit". This means that the academics in their ivory towers get plenty of exposure to the real world - I can't believe that in a university, there is no contact between the academics who get funding from business and those who get government funding to do academic research. It looks to me like the channels running from the academy to business are fairly well open.

I started my working life in a UK university, as a lowly research assistant on a government funded project. Both my parents are academics, and this is what I wanted to do with my life. However, I quickly realised that an academic salary would never allow me to buy a decent house in the town where I was living. And this was ten years ago. I was working in economics, and we did a fair amount of external consulting work. So I have some experience of what you are talking about, although I am sure that things are different in science and engineering.

I then went to work in finance, and to be honest, this is one area where the British are quite good at applying the results of academic research to making money. It's a bit more abstract than science, of course, but quite important for the British economy. I would argue, based on a fairly narrow experience, that the issue is not the academics, but the businesses. True, I have seen some very hamfisted attempts at business by academics, but at least they are trying. There is an image of academics refusing to sully their hands with business, but my experience is that in the UK at least, they will do anything to make a buck. I think the problem is more with a lack of innovation by business - UK businesses don't invest that much in R and D, although I know that there are exceptions. This is in marked contrast to the US model, where companies are expected to innovate, and failure is not a disaster. UK industries tend to stay in comfortable niches (again, in general). I suspect that MLE Europe failed because of its own mismanagement, but that doesn't mean that universities are unable, in principle, to build mutually profitable links with business.

Obviously...

[ZiZ]

What they need to do is fund it by first producing a massively popular search engine, then encourage its engineers to spend one day a week working on personal projects on company time.

Re:Inside Scoop

[Altus]

No.... the prefer to measure in Smoots.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

NO

[geekoid]

he was referring to sponsership from companies.

Get off your high horse and pay attention.

Also, much of the research is needed, and leads to scientific break throughs. I, for one, support government research.

eith your plan, nothing would ever get done.

Expensive

[drwho]

The problem is that it's just too expensive. MIT ex-president Vest had a very dot-com attitude towards spending, having investing a lot of the Universities money in very questionable companies with a lot of prestige, and many projects of quaint but questionable utility. Anyone who knows the story of the Stata building (a.k.a. the Gates building), that expensive, ugly, leaking monstrosity, can tell you MIT has made mistakes.

My feeling is the MLE was one of them. Dublin has become a VERY expensive place to live and do business. This is especially true if your capital pool is is dollars. Cambridge (Massachusetts, home of MIT) is expensive too, but not as expensive as Dublin.

Back in the 1960s, the Media Lab was a place of innovation because of the people involved, not the amount of money thrown at it. Since then, there have been a number of prima donnas who want the newest, best stuff. The formerly very drrop pockets of MIT made them used to getting what they demanded. But the pockets are light now. It's no surprise that the most remote wings of the organization will be the first to get clipped.

If I were running an organization such as the Media Lab, what I would do is NOT to try to shift focus on more commercially viable projects. There's enough commercial labs out there, doing a good job on this. What I would do is find a way run it on a shoestring budget. For instance, just up the street from that horrible Stata building are the old, empty and decaying Polaroid buildings. Those could have been bought and made useable for a fraction of the money it took to build Stata (yes, I know, State is an endowed building. Still, they could have done it). Instead of picking Dublin for RLE, pick a cheaper part of Europe that is less likely to skyrocket in costs because of its small size. But a country that is stable and has a good infrastructure. Someplace like the eastern part of Germany where you can buy land really cheap, and the government has a very long-term view towards helping the economy.

And trim down those salaries! There's no need to be demanding $130k/year when you can buy a nice house for $80k.

To summarize: cheaper area, less glitz, lower salaries, but still a playground for the mind.

Re:Expensive

[Bozdune]

As an MIT alum, I can assure you that there was no "Media Lab" in 1979, so there almost assuredly was no "Media Lab" in the 60's.

Your cost point is valid, except that the buildings replaced by the Stata Center were in pretty rough shape themselves. The old Building 20, which I remember well, was a series of three-story wooden structures built as "temporary lab space" in the war years (WW II). It had to be replaced with SOMETHING. You can love Stata or hate it, but if you're going to have an Architecture Department (which MIT does), you're going to try something new and different if you have the chance. So they did.

With regard to picking up the Polaroid buildings, historically it hasn't been so easy for MIT and other Cambridge, Massachusetts educational institutions to move outside their current boundaries. The Cambridge City Council, long dominated by blue-collar types, has always wanted Cambridge to retain its light manufacturing roots, and has always resisted (through zoning, the real power in all city government) the expansion of the colleges. That's why Kendall Square was a FNML (fucking no-man's land) for 35 years, until the battle finally turned MIT's way.

There are other examples of this -- the button factory on Amherst Street that finally became MIT's, Building E40, the apartments on Vassar Street that MIT wasn't allowed to own until a 20 year period had elapsed, and so on.

So it isn't always that easy to just move into empty buildings, especially in the People's Republic of Cambridge.

Good, now close the OTHER lab...

[DesScorp]

...and put the money to far more useful IT teaching and research.

The media lab concept was born of the 90's "ooh aah!" fascination with the Internet. It was a way to try and continue the glory of MIT's Project Athena days in the 80's (which DID produce brilliant, useful work that we all benefit from to this day), but it was poorly concieved, yielded little real benefit, and wasted a lot of money. It should have been strangled in it's crib, but dot com dollars kept it afloat while MIT polished it's reputation as a hip place to go to school. In stark contrast to the serious work at MIT and Berkeley in the 80's, the Media Lab took on more of a chic aura, kind of a Studio 54 for geeks.

Thankfully, like disco itself, these kinds of places are dying out. It's just a shame that individuals, families, and corporations that shelled out millions of dollars have watched it all dissapear into a black hole, into what was essentially a university sponsored dot com scheme.

Huh

[Skim123]

You mean no companies want to pay for this valuable research? I am shocked. Shocked!

No, the dot.coms imiitated the Media Lab

[peter303]

The Media Lab was an amalgamation of the MIT Architecture studios and the Computer Science Lab. Both places had used the "playpen" environments since the 1960s. The architecture labs inter-penetrated the top floor of Building 7 Borg infiltrating the Enterprise. People built interconnected, multi-level cubby holes and common areas for their art studios and classrooms.

Many dot.coms adopted this style of goofy shared spaces. You still see this at Google, Pixar, etc.

This atmosphere has recently extended to the newly opened "Dr. Suess" Computer Science Department (Strata) building at MIT. This building looks like a bunch of twisty towers. Theres a lot weird looking offices, common spaces and passage ways. Plus its own gym and cafeteria, so students rarely need to return home.