Slashdot Mirror
Industrial Labs that Still Do Fundamental Research
An anonymous reader asks: "I am a graduate student of Mechanical Engineering at a reputed University in the United States. I have had a lot of fun working towards my PhD. I have published papers and done exciting research. I should be finishing up in the next few months or so, but I would like to continue doing the same kind of work that I am doing now. One option would be to take up a post-doctoral research appointment and find myself a faculty position. I am somehow not attracted to this option because of the tenure and grant pressure. My ideal job would be in something like the Bell Labs of yester-years. Do you know of labs that have that kind of environment? National labs are supposed to have such an atmosphere, but my stint in one of them makes me think otherwise. Google does seem to have such an environment but I am not a CS person. Does Slashdot know of labs where basic research in applied engineering is still done in the US, without the pressure of money and immediate results?"
I would not necessarily give up on academia. Granted, the last five years has been particularly hard on basic science research (especially in biosciences), but there are still good options for the best and brightest. In academia, you really need to have the PhD if you want the flexibility that you are looking for. That said, I've found academia to be a tremendously rewarding experience that does not preclude you from work in industry either. For instance, we've been exploring the commercialization of some of our technologies and I am pleased to say that you *can* have it all with academic environments and industrial aspirations. The trick is that you have to create your own company to do this or find an academic environment that will support independent commercialization.
With respect to industrial labs that do basic research, the pressure from any federally funded labs from the Bush administration has been away from basic research and towards applied research that has mirrored the trend in industry for the few years preceding this administration. Years ago there were more far thinking companies like Xerox, HP, SGI and Bell Labs, but they got lazy and were under more pressure from shareholders to focus more on short term profits and less on long term viability of the company. This effect has been reflected in the long term performance of each of these companies as their influence has withered away. There are some current companies that are starting to invest more of their dollars in true R&D which is being reflected in their performance, but i worry that the trend in this country is going to hurt our international viability in a variety of the sciences both commercial and academic.
P.S. The other thing that you should be aware of is that many industrial labs require some post-doctoral training period as well to obtain positions....... Of course it will depend upon the appointment, but a post doc is viewed as a useful thing not just in pure academia.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
My computer engineering group works rather extensively with IBM's T.J Watson research lab in New York (off the top of my head, we're working with them on two new architectures they are designing, and they used us as guinea pigs to test a new multi-threaded programming language they are developing). I can say first-hand that they do some really great work.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Your university is only believed to be or assumed to be a university? I'd say get out now.
my pet machine
Navy Research Labs (NRL) and/or Army Research Labs (ARL) might be what you're looking for.
Regarding your desire to avoid sponsors: anywhere that you're going for DoD money, whether your at a university or in a lab, you're going to have to suck it up and try to get funding. On the bright side, once you have good relationships with sponsors, I'm told that getting money each year takes less time than the last year did.
NSF and DARPA money are reliably low-pressure. Sometimes money from MITRE is also low-pressure. NRL money can often be low pressure, depending on the program and sponsor in question.
Long story short, I think DoD labs can maybe offer the low-pressure you're looking for, if you can hook up with the right sponsors. Also, working as a civil servant, you'll have job security, vacation, and even pay levels that are better than most corporate research positions offer.
"I am a graduate student of Mechanical Engineering at a reputed University in the United States."
:)
"reputed University"? It's said to be a University? Like what, University of Gorgonzola?
Obviously not an English major... Hopefully this means you actually spent your time studying in your field
I got my PhD 4 years ago. Microsoft Research and IBM are the two widely respected industrial CS research labs. I'm not sure how you could get through a PhD program and not know this.
Google has a very small research lab. They don't publish much. If you want to remain part of the research community, do not go to google. They are well known as a black hole of ideas. They've published something like 2 OSDI papers, and that's it.
Companies that dont make money and get immediate results dont stick arround.
http://ge.com/research/
http://ge.com/research/grc_3_1.html
McDonalds!
Dont make a better sig, you insensitive clod!
I don't know, of course, but you shouldn't be surprised at all if there are absolutely no privately-owned (like Bell Labs was. Not talking about private universities here) pure research labs in the U.S. anymore.
The U.S. is run almost entirely by bureaucrats, lawyers, and accountants now. Such people have no interest in anything beyond next quarter's profits and their own stock options. Why would they care about something so "unprofitable" as pure, undirected research?
Worse, I think the rest of the world is following suit. But I could be wrong about that, too.
Either way, it's quite depressing. Actually, most of the current trends are quite depressing. I should probably stop thinking about them, and probably would if it weren't so useful to have some idea of what to expect...
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
... can be an interesting place to work. Very much depends what you would get to work on, though. I guess presure on results out is almost always there in industral labs. But still, an interesting problem to pursue for few years can grant you the illusion you seek.
http://ge.com/research/
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
Congratulations!
I don't have a college degree.
Outstanding!
Recommend you stay in school then.
That would somewhat be staying in school.
Welcome back to school.
Probably Goole. No, maybe the General Services Administration. No, Maybe Google.
Good lord, how did this make it here? Mechanical Engineering? Google even shows up on your radar, and you aren't a CS guy? Compuserve died long ago...
The readers might..however no pressure of money and immediate results might drive you to a state agency.
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
Check out Southwest Research Institute, there is a variety of government and commercial R&D being conducted in many fields that relate to Mechanical Engineering. The environment is relaxed and encourages self motivated people.
You mention that you would like to work for the Bell-labs of old. What makes you think you need a CS degree?
In my limited experience, research labs for technology companies (like IBM, HP and Sun) employ a very diverse group of people from multiple disciplines. The common trait of these people is that they are interested in researching computers, without necessarily having a CS degree. In some ways having a CS degree might not help if you want to do radically innovative stuff (one never knows). I cannot comment on the likes of Google, Ebay or Amazon, but I am sure they have a lot of smart people working on their computing problems that do not have CS degrees. Consider this, if you work for Amazon and research interface design to guide customer decision making, I would *hope* you don't have a CS degree...
If your engineering degree will give you access to any of the research labs, I don't know. Part of it is luck of the draw - having some skills they want. The other part is pure brain power, e.g. are you smart enough to cope and flexible enough to adapt.
If you want to work at a research lab, be prepared to present yourself as a capable candidate.
Make yourself indespensible across departments/schools.
Consider a J.D. & Patent Law (the Patent Bar). You can pick up the J.D. in 2.5-3 yrs - that coupled with your Ph.D. makes you portable as hell.
To be honest, if you want to do "useless"/interesting research, your best bet may be a government lab. There's plenty of pie-in-the-sky research at places like JPL. I met a ton of interesting people there, and a lot of the challenges of exploring other planets actually bring about some rather abstract problems to be solved.
"Does Slashdot know of labs where basic research in applied engineering is still done in the US, without the pressure of money and immediate results?""
How about starting with the "school of hard knocks"? One way or another money's going to be involved. Period! Results? Well sooner or later. Or were you under the impression that businesses (even Bell labs) did what they did out of the goodness of their hearts? Even the government wants results (albeit for different reasons).* The thing is not wishing that the world was something it will never be. But to fit within and control it enough that you get the desired results.
*Someone mentioned academia. Problem is that money's tight for various reasons and it's no longer the geek paradise it once was.
--
My script word oddly enough is "timeless".
Research Triangle Institute, in the Raleigh / Durham NC area is a research organization founded by Duke, UNC, and NC State 40+ years ago. They are tied closely to academia which seems to be important to you, and are involved in research & development in just about any field you can imagine. They were even mentioned recently on slashdot.
:)
Disclaimer: I work for them
I recently got a job at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab. The atmosphere there is very much like what you are looking for. Right off the bat, you might not be doing fundamental research but will get the opportunity to submit IR&D proposals probably within a year. They are loosely linked to academia and have a relatively laid back atmosphere because they are not-for-profit, and the stuff you do there even if it's not fundamental research, will be advancing existing technologies on the bleeding edge.
A second option would be MIT Lincoln Laboratory. They have a similar atmosphere. Very think-tank-ish. Also not-for-profit. I didn't like them as much because there's a lot of arrogance and apparently a high turn-over rate, but very interesting work.
Warning: these suggestions are useless unless you are a US citizen and can obtain a security clearance.
A future researcher asking Slashdotters where he/she should do research. Shudder....
I do like programming things that work super quickly, especially when they work super quickly, super quickly.
Really, a lot of advisors do consulting with their associated industry, or were once in such a research lab you are looking for. If that doesn't pan out, e-mail some other professors in the department whom you know. You'll find someone who knows the scene. Another option is to use CiteSeer or Google Scholar to search for papers in areas that you are interested in, and skim them for any that are published by private company labs, and apply there.
If you first do a year or two or real work in real industry, then go back to academia or fundamental research, you're more likely to have a far better appreciation of the industry and more likely to make valuable contributions.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The various national laboratories and other FFRDCs vary widely in their environment. I wouldn't necessarily write off all of them based on your experience at one. They have the large benefit of having research in their particular field being a core part of their charter, and government funding to boot.
I don't know if these guys are industrial enough for you, but check out http://www.nwra.com/ for more information about NWRA. They do a lot of different things, get government and private grants, and are privately owned (by the employees).
I used to work for them in their Boulder, CO office. Great group of people.
I work a lot with guys from there. They are good. The only potential problem -- it is in the middle of nowhere (upstate NY, 5hr drive from any place you may want to live).
The Physical Science Lab ant New Mexico State University. They do almost all outside conrtacts and gerneral research. The largest part of the work is for missles by contract with various companies (Lockheed, TRW, Hughes, Gen Dyn, Martin, etc...) and White Sands Missle Range which is 30 miles East over the mountain. This goes back to work with Von Braun and the V2 scientists. PSL has also done geothermal systems research and installed the geothermal system that supplies all the hot water to the dorms and heats the swimming pools. I know because as a student employee in 1980 I dug most of the trenches and installed all the insulated pipe from the 2 wells to the campus (about 4 miles). They do other things there also, some require a security clearance and some don't. Take a look.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
http://crc.ca/
I have friends who work there. They love it. Pay isn't as high as private industry (where you get to do _no_ research), but the work makes up for it.
One of my favourite stories from a friend there is from when he completed his first (assigned) research project after being there for six months or so.
Friend (to boss): Ok, I'm done this. What should I work on next?
Boss (looking at friend like he's an idiot): Uh, whatever you want to work on.
Friend: Huh?
Boss: We're a research institute. Go find something that is worthwhile to research that interests you and do it.
Friend: Uhhh? What?
Boss: Let me know how it turns out.
There's another story about this friend and his attempt to fake his ability to speak french to the beer vendor, but as I said, that's another story.
BTW, you must have at least a Master's degree before they'll consider you. (yes, I know you do, IRTFA, but there will be others reading this)
While private labs may have dried up, that doesn't necessarily mean that research is coming to a standstill in America. As a PhD engineering student, I see a great number of projects, including my own, that are funded by private companies. While the company may have a very specific goal in mind, but if a professor is smart it accomplishes so much more. The nature of university research combined with the need to publish papers means that fundamental research is being done. Personally, my group is working with funding from a major corporation to answer some fundamental mechanics questions that they simply don't have the facilities, expertice (and patience, I think) to answer. The result will be a real-world product as well as some serious "pie in the sky" research. If you want to feel like you are in a corporate lab of yesteryear, get a teaching position at a university and seek funding from a corporation. You may be doing almost the same thing.
If you are looking for the kind of place that Xerox used to be, especially as a way to avoid the mindnumbing grind of chasing grants and spending your life in what amounts to temp job, forget it.
First, even at the "golden years" of blue-sky research, the only ones that had a permanent position were people that had already proven themselves by a long grind in the post-doc mill and found to be exceptional. Going from your thesis to a steady research job in a place like that didn't happen even then.
There are places like that today - around here we have NICT and ATR in southern Kyoto, for example. But there too, much of the research is implicitly or explicitly aimed at resulting in something useful, and you are no more free of the grant process than at a university. The people with a permanent position are again few and far between; the head researchers overseeing the groups of post-docs and visiting researchers having some temporary grant.
Really, the difference between university research and research institute or large-company research is in my experience mainly in the need to teach (and the opportunity for a semi-steady income) at a university on one hand; and the greater financial resources for equipment and travel at institutes on the other.
I know of only two ways to get to do free research without the teeth-grinding pain of grant-chasing and temporary job upon temporary job:
* Get a steady part-time job you can live on, and do research in your spare time. Teaching is not a bad option if you're reasonably good at it; you have access to the university, with seminars, labs and people, and teaching your subject forces you to pay attention to areas you perhaps would tend to ignore if left to your own devices.
* Make a fortune, retire and do research as a hobby, perhaps form and finance a small group with a couple of colleagues you like and work well with. Hey, we can all dream, right?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Sharp's various R&D laboratories still do an awful lot of pretty cool stuff. I spent my gap year working at Sharp Labs of Europe, and had lots of fun. Sharp have a R&D lab in the USA as well. Check it out -- I imagine many corporations still have similar dedicated and well-funded research efforts.
Pirate Party UK
about 2 months ago, I went to germany. At that time, I was traveling next to a guy from my area (colorado) and we struck up an obviously long conversation. What I found out was that he had been in the airforce and was very specialized in fire extinguiser chemistry. It turned out that he had his own lab and was obtaining all sorts of funding from DARPA and others. As somebody who has worked for CDC (on my first degree), IBM Watson, Bell Labs, and US West AT, any major research labs is now subject to major disruption from the feds. Worse it is subject to the whims of any admin.
All in all, do you own lab or create a lab with several others. You will have the same issues, but at least you are in control.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I know the parent post asks for labs in the USA, but there are plenty of options overseas - notably the government-funded CSIRO laboratories all around sunny Australia (disclaimer: that's where I work)*. If you are interested in computer science research, you can't go past the ICT Centre (/.). Specifically, if you're interested in cutting-edge robotics research, there's Autonomous Systems (who are frequent news items on ./), or if medical engineering is more your style, there's the BioMedIA lab. There are, of course, other research labs in Australia, but this is the one I know most about :)
:D
Australia offers a good place to carry out research, with many state governments (notably Victoria and Queensland) pouring millions into funding. Plus the lifestyle and standard of living is pretty hard to beat
* The usual oddities that associated with any large organisation (management & HR weirdness) are omnipresent, but these come and go and are par for the course.
Moo.
Of course I forgot something:
Teaching is not the only way to keep a hand in. If you have technical or other specialist skills, finding a support job at university or institute may not be a bad idea either. You are perhaps a wizard on the lab lathe and milling machine, or you have demonic organizational skills, making you excellent department secretary material? You have access to a lot of research resources, you have a steady job with not need to spend much of your time just chasing money to live on - and chances are, your income is higher than that of the post-docs you're surrounded with.
Of course, you'd not be the only one realizing this; you're in for some heavy competition no matter what you try to do.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
If you're doing applied research, you won't have to pursue the money, but you'll have to produce concrete results, on time, on work that's assigned to you.
I'm surprised you're nearly at your Ph.D. and this has not been made clear to you. You really, really need to be having this conversation with your advisor and other faculty (or senior researchers) within your department. Start with your committee--they know you and your work (hopefully!)
Get out of school and find a "cool" job that doesn't suck too much. You'll certainly get tired of it after 4 years and will go freelance as long as you can stand being poor. Then you'll get a "cool" job again, anything to pay your bills. In the case of failure, go back to school, and repeat the cycle as necessary until you can retire. If you can't stand this world, as many do, just survive and wait for the end. Isn't life exciting?
"...basic research in applied engineering is still done in the US, without the pressure of money and immediate results?"
So think biggest company (revenue wise) in the world. Even their corp. research demands results from basic projects. Corporate research in any company is now considered a Business Unit. ROCI must be maintained! The good old days are gone. When I joined said large company in the early nineties there were perhaps 2 or 3 famous research fellows in-house. By the time I left they had all moved on to academic jobs or startups. Nowadays you'll be lucky to be allowed to do some "side projects" in your career. Maybe spend a few days a month on it. The rest of the time will be meetings while your tech grinds out data. The up side is that you'd be surprised at how much you can expand basic knowledge doing things that academics consider "whoring your self out". Some interesting finds can be made exploring ways to improve products and processes. (and the pay can be pretty sweet) At this point in my life I might welcome an invitation from the Devil again....
I thought it was a good idea
Come to the Naval Research Lab in Washington, DC.....
Seriously, that is the type of job that you have described. No pressure, a decent salary and benefits, doing research that no one pays outside of your department pays any attention to. And w/a Ph.D.--hell, you're a shoe-in. Talk about job security! It would also fit in beautifully w/your writing skills!
IBM
I am surprised that no one mentioned Sandia National Labs. I realize that they are DoD and a good bit of the work that I have read about concerning them is network/security related, but as far as I am aware they are nothing but research out there. Maybe ping the nsf website? (.gov)
Your questions are interesting in that I know of, and have helped hire, a great number of refugees FROM private research labs (AT&T Research, Lucent, DEC/Compaq WRL...) who are interested in moving TO academia. I get the impression that a number of these traditionally great private research labs (notably the New Jersey ones, heirs of the storied Bell Labs mantle) have become less than great places to be. There has been mass exodus of top researchers from those places to academia. Why? The ones that I know well haven't liked the changes and don't want to be the last ones going down in a sinking ship. Overall, there has been less freedom about what kinds of projects they can put energy into, and more cost-justification/compromises made by short-term market-minded thinking. There is a great deal of uncertainty about the long-term direction of these labs, even those that have been great places to work recently. I think it's more than the usual "grass is greener on the other side" effect as some of these folks had been in academia before working for the various labs. For my university, it's been a great windfall, as we've had multiple strong hires in the last five years from the research labs- people who are quite senior and aren't too worried about the less-than-fantastic university salaries, but aren't interested in leaving the New York area, for a variety of reasons.
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
The parent is absolutely correct. Much of the top level R&D work, even "6.1" work (DoD jargon for basic research) is contracted out. There are some DoD labs that still do cutting edge work. The NRL is one. The alternative is to work for one of the contractors. You don't need to work for a juggernaut like Raytheon or Northrup Grumman. There are plenty of small companies that do advanced research. You should take a look for companies that are winning SBIR awards in research areas that interest you. The great thing about looking for SBIR winners is that you aren't limited to DOD work. There's also money from NIH, NASA, etc.
Of course, there are pressures for project management and some of these programs need to turn into products. It's hard to get away from the fact that it's hard to get research funding unless you have an ultimate application and the money won't keep coming unless you have some success in your work. Even in the glory days of Bell Labs when there was some time and money avaiable for curiosity driven research, most of the work had an application. Academic research faces similar hassles. Your advisor might have shielded you from some of that, but a professer needs to pull in research grants, and if your proposals don't have an ultimate application, it's hard to get funding, especially when you're starting out. If you don't get funding as an assistant professor, you will find that once your start-up money runs out you can't recruit students. Furthermore, the speed of research will grind to a halt since your existing students must teach all the time and you can't afford new equipment. Professors in this situation don't get tenure. For the most part, the professors who get money for pure unapplied science have already established themselves as brilliant researchers who are leaders in their fields at top universities.
I read this as saying you'd like a great job without pressure. And maybe a pony as well. It may be worth noting that the people at Bell Labs of yesteryear were generally people who would cruise through tenure and get plentiful grant funding consistently. A place with opportunities to do interesting, independant research of your choosing requires a great deal of ability and drive, whether it is academic, private or governmental. If you don't want to work too hard, fine, but don't expect a dream job without fanatastic commitment and drive.
what you want is a CERN like facility, with sufficient funding and excellent oppurtunities.
Sorry, this is a PhD we're talking about, right?
Physicist, consultant, science communicator
"National labs are supposed to have such an atmosphere, but my stint in one of them makes me think otherwise. " ...labs where basic research in applied engineering is still done in the US, without the pressure of money and immediate results?"
If the national lab environment wasn't for you... the corporate environment may be even worse. As a PhD in chemical engineering working at an R&D lab in one of the biggest 'tech companies' in the US that still does physical sciences reseach... I can say this from first hand experience. And, by the way, we employ a LOT of PhD mechanical engineers (mostly with materials science expertise).
At one of the conferences I've attended, I talked with one of the pioneers in my area of research (organic electronics) that works at TJ Watson Lab. Even he complains at how 'managed' the research is at Watson. Actually - his particular project got shelved. All my friends (other PhDs) at Watson do seem to have this cloud of doubt looming over their head regarding the longevity of their positions.
"
As you know - physical sciences research (of which I suspect you are a part of) is extremely expensive. (~$4000 barely gets me an electronic weighing balance that allows me to weigh out the chemicals that I use, much less do anything with it) Someone's got to pay for this. The return on investment for research has gained huge scrutiny in the past several years since it's typically so bad. Many company's don't have such efforts (e.g. Apple, Dell) and are still successful as they concentrate on industrial design and business execution. They simply BUY this technology from smaller companies (or acquire them). And as far as working for those 'smaller companies'... this is even more stressful since it is really sink or swim.. so the 'pressure of money and immediate results' is even greater.
My best advice is this... on your interviews - ask as many questions as possible to learn about how serious the company is in making the appropriate investments for whatever project they are hiring you for. Talk to your would-be peers and ask them frank questions about the work environment.
Lastly - one of my close collegues at work left a senior scientist position at a national lab to work where we do now and he regrets it deeply. If you are really, truly into research and learning the nature of things, and have low tolerance for corporate bullshit - then stay in academina/national lab. If you can stomach it - as I can - there are definitely perks to working for a big company's reseach lab (e.g. the pockets are deep).
Parent makes some excellent points.. However,
.. for they will eventually run out of toilet paper.
I contend that they will need a person with a CS degree in the immediate future....
I'm currently looking for a job and this what I've been told.
Did someone say, MOONBASE?!
Find a mad scientist and aquire a limp. You may not get much say in the direction of the research, but you should find yourself doing somethng interesting soon enough...
Seriously, look abroad as well, and I mean anywhere abroad.
Good luck
For some reason I read that as "The North Will Rise Again!"
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
Expect if you find a job where there is little connection to revenue and performance, the job will vanish due to failure of the company. As the anonymous reader self says: "..Like bell labs of YESTERYEAR".
I have worked as a R&D project manager for companies with these ivory towers of researches. While I need the algorithm next month, they usually propose to create some two year research project with some unclear goal.
I believe they should deliver or disappear.
You should just embrace the need to deliver, and have a lot of fun doing it.
"Fix it"
You may be interested too look for companies with small business inovation research grants (SBIR) - many of them do earlier stage work as many bridge the academic to business orientation. Most of the technical folks that I have worked with are PhDs - perhaps becuase they require that people write grants to be funded and PhDs are more likely to do this. Each federal research funding agency has an affiliated SBIR program. Portions of the grant projects are made public as are geographic and regional information. If you provide more information maybe I can narrow more. Good luck. See http://www.sba.gov/SBIR/indexsbir-sttr.html
Being able to do great research in a stimulating environment is not about technology in the first place, nor is it about the formal type of structure you are conducting that research in. As one post said it below, it is about people. It **is** possible to find a privately owned corporation, even small or medium-sized, that will let you do exactly such a thing, simply because there is a good human contact between you and the management / executives. It's about trust. I am speaking from my own experience: a French ( now ) 800-employee tech company let me set up their research department. From scratch, and on a low budget. It was until now the greatest time in my life, professionally speaking. The morale of this story: think outside of the box. Go look for what you want in usual places taking the usual means - and what you'll find will be predictable. Go look for what you want in unusual places, take unusual means - and you'll find unusual things.
Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem - necnon voluptatem
( Ockam's razor, hack #3254.1 )
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Since the above are all illegal, especially in scientific quantities and are forbidden from schools and other training facilities, not much happens in terms of industrial science these days. I'm happily reinventing the wheel; how many mechanical engineering grads can build a wheel without going to a store?
You probably won't find an industry job doing only fundamental (i.e. not yet applicable) research. But I'm sure there are many technology companies that face fundamental problems when developing high-tech products. Many companies simply hack around the problem and end up making mediocre products. So, find a company that makes new and innovative products. Ofcourse, you'll begin close to the bottom (a PhD won't help you much). But if if you work hard and show initiative, you may work your way to a position where you are asked to solve problems that others can't, i.e. interesting and possibly fundamental problems. So, select a company that makes innovative products, and that is open to new ideas. You'll need to get your hands dirty and you'll need some luck.
assignment != equality != identity
Thought of providing UK side of the story. Even life is tough here. I mean, real tough. After finishing the PhD, it may be easy to get a PostDoc position. But getting in teh academic ladder needs more than your talent. Interestingly, smaller the universities, greater the influence you need. Things are obviously difficult at big universities like cambridge/oxford/imperial etc, where you need to be an international level expert to get the job. Sadly, not all of us and it will take some time. In the opposite, all other universities simply recruit people throug their colleagues, friends and through network of friends. Unless there is someone to cook up a position for you through your network, it is total b***s**it here. When an ad appears everytime, you are damn sure that someone has already been selected. Rest is eyewash. The worst part of the story is how they count the publications. All your junk will be counted simply. So, your publications in IEEE has no merits or whatever in comparison to junk publications. So, in summary what happens is some donkey who has published in local so-called journals get the job through his network. We put our talent in publishing prestegeous publications and nowhere to go. If you are considering coming to UK to seek an academic position, here is my piece of advice: Cook up the job first. The ad will appear, and you apply as a normal citizen and you will be selected etc. Or, simply go for industry and you will be fine.
Bose
And no, I couldn't give a shit what my karma is.
OK, I'm a mechanical engineer with a PhD myself, and have been in a similar position so I think I can provide some ideas and/or advise. I did a couple of postdocs after finishing, realised being in the lab was not what I wanted and am now working in technology transfer which I absolutely love.
Firstly, I think it is important to distinguish mechanical engineering (probably include civil engineering too) from computing/software/IT type engineering. I'm don't want to get into arguments about why and I'm not trying to be controversial or put anyone down, but I do think the CS situation is not particularly relevant.
One of the things I would ask is what you enjoyed about the PhD. Did you do genuine blue sky research? Or was it industrially relevant (was there an industrial collaborator)? What did you enjoy - was it being able to go down every avenue and just "try stuff" to see what happens? This kind of freedom to research only really happens in (1) academia or (2) very very large (and rich) companies who often have research labs encouraging this kind of research in the areas the company operates in, e.g GE healthcare (Germany), Rolls Royce have an aero/turbine research lab (UK/Europe), Ford have an environmental research lab (UK).
If you're looking for industrially relevant engineering research, which is based on commercial decisions and reasons, then look to industry.
One thing to keep in mind with academia is that many research groups have partnerships with industrial companies whose input can vary from anything to just simply providing cash/resources to actually genuinely driving the research direction based on the company strategy. Many large research groups have a person who might act as the liason with the engineering company, project managing the research and reporting progress to the company, effectively acting as a company voice within the research group.
Hope that helps a little.
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
At least in the biomedical sciences, the major alternative for academia is the not-for-profit research institute. The majority of these are run like academic labs, with PI's, post-docs, and staff researchers (and techs), but the funding for these labs is through collaboration with large pharma and biotech firms. That nearly eliminates the need for grant writing, and in these environments, creativity and ingenuity are still respected.
http://www.mitre.org
MITRE is a blast. Ideal for research types and applied geeks alike. From nano-tech to the DARPA grand challenge, MITRE has something for every college-educated nerd.
Pay is good. Pressure is light, if any. Funding is near limitless. The work environment is modern, well-equipped, and relatively spacious compared to most similar orgs.
MITRE has been one of Fortune's "100 Best Companies To Work For" 5 years in a row (ranked 66 this year) and one of IDG / Computerworld's "Best Places to Work in IT" for 2 years (ranked 8 this year). Check out the Fortune writeup HERE.
The biggest challenge you will face at MITRE is getting hired. Apparently, there were only 191 NEW jobs + 250 or so job openings due to voluntary turnover... and nearly 25,000 applicants. Yikes.
I thought the BioMedIA Lab were now called the Biomedical Engineering group. ;)
And those websites won't be back online until 2006-07-29 18:00:00 AEDT due to a network outage - NOT the Slashdot Effect!
What is the inverse of the Matrix?
Maybe it is time for such a thing to be funded. This would take huge amounts of money to start but perhaps patents generated and leased could help its funding grow, though I would much rather see results open sourced. Working arrangements with academia, business and the government could prove mutually beneficial or hindering to the project. Would love to see programs included to involve educational intern programs for students as well and not just at the college level. Such a set up could be a great boon to space exploration and medical research for real cures.
Done right it could reinspire interest in science amongst the young. It would take a lot of space here to discuss and flesh out ideas for just what such a foundation could mean to science, how it could be set up and how it could be funded, but it boils down to it would take a tremendous amount of cash just to get started well enough to really attract attention and funds, so what about it Bill and Melinda Gates? Doesn't such a program fit in with your goals? Do you think you could get others onboard for it, maybe even your old partner Paul Allen?
I'll echo the parent's comments. My father used to work at GE research & development and I grew up in Schenectady. It's actually quite a nice area of the country.
I don't know how fast the grandparent drives, but I've been to Boston easily in ~3 hrs, about the same for NYC, and ~4 hrs for Montreal. Of course this depends on traffic, particularly when you get close to Boston or NYC. But there's also a train from Schenectady or Albany down to NYC and you can use your laptop or read the whole way.
The NY Capital District is also well situated if you like the outdoors. Three mountain ranges within easy drive, including the Berkshires in western MA, the Adirondacks and the Catskills. Lots of great hiking, climbing, etc.
Sorry... back to fundamental research? I haven't worked at GE, but from friends and family friends, it's getting back to more fundamental research. Under Jack Welch, GE really was pushing the bottom line for research (i.e, everything had to be applied), but I hear more about basic science and engineering now.
I think the bottom line for the original poster... there are some industrial research labs who do fairly basic research. But no one will give you free reign forever. Whether that was ever the case in industry or not, I don't know. It's not even true in academia -- plenty of faculty have seen grants dry up.
the end of intellectual progres...
The low hanging fruit just isn't as available in well established fields.
That is true. Which means that the established fields are ripe for disruption. Which may not happen in any given field to suit the career prospects of any individual.
However, if you do want to get "in on the ground floor", the best thing to do is to marry two disciplines together that don't oviously go together. My advice these days is look into biology and biotech.
Example: what if there are mechanical or mathematical properties of tumors that typical biology and medical training does not prepare one to analyze or even perceive? This would obviously be a great area for somebody trained in chemical engineering, but you get the picture.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Might be a good idea whatever route you wish to take. I think you meant to say "Reputable" not "Reputed" as I assume you're going to a University that has a good reputation and not one that is just generally thought to be a University.
Just busting your chops. Yeah, hell, hang out in academia for as long as you can. The real world sucks!
I SO aggree with you. I have worked a good bit of my career in R&D and much of that in NASA or DoD funded Labs. It could be good but somehow it always seems to suck. Bad Managers with short vision worrying about next years budget, heros looking for ego stroking recongnition, and/or beaurocratic stupidities always stifling creative thought. I'm about ready to give it up and go work the 'hole' down at the bus station, at the end of the day I might feel better about myself.
I'll suggest UTRC, though I don't really know about the work environment (which seems to matter to you). Considering the projects of UTC proper though (high performance turbine engines, scramjets, rotorcraft etc.), I think it'd be exciting research for a MechE major.
My buddy is a mechE (thermal guy) working there on very esoteric thermal problems (he got hired for his work in micro-bubble cooling as an undergrad and masters student, one of only 4 guys in his 50 person group without a PhD...)
his job description is "invent stuff, don't worry about practical applications, we have whole buildings full of engineers who take your work and find uses for it"
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
I think a great option for you might be to consider getting a position at a primarily undergrad university. At these universities you can focus on both your research and teaching. Compared to large universities in the U.S where all they care about is how much money their profs bring in from grants. I know at my undergrad university all you needed to get tenure in the chem. dept. was 1 publication in the first 6 years.
I looked at TJ Watson as well. Being in microelectronics, I was advised that there isn't much difference between TJ Watson and Fishkill (both IBM) these days. For people outside, TJ Watson sounds more like a research place and Fishkill more as a manufacturing plant - but almost all the work now is done at Fishkill.
Regarding basic research, I had the same question. Who does the blue sky research at IBM ? As the senior manager puts it - it is like having a startup within a big company. You have to fight for it and make it work. No management will just drop in the money for free. So I wondered why they have quantum computing group ? Answer is simple - those people are some of the best in the world. It doesn't harm IBM to have these people around and not produce anything useful immediately. But then IBM can use the fame of these people to boost the research portfolio.
of investing more billions in redundant weapon systems.
I know it's not as easy to sell politically, but I really think we would
get more useful technology transfer out of that than weason systems.
(much of which isn't useful outside of a weapon context)
Just when do you think we can buy a depleted uranium bunker buster in
our local Walmart?
I worked as an undergrad at JPL - and my experience gave me a reason to pursue a PhD. I'm starting my PhD in CS in the Fall, and still currently working at JPL doing a mix of "independent" research and implementation. I fully intend to return after I'm done with my degree.
On the other hand, it is almost impossible to get a job here unless you know someone, have lots of (space-ish) experience, and/or are relatively well known in your field (and your past work applies directly to JPL goals).
Anyhow - a great place to work if you have a PhD.
Does Slashdot know of labs where basic research in applied engineering is still done in the US, without the pressure of money and immediate results?"
You should go to work for the federal government, my son.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
If you look at this URL below you may see some positions suggesting Google
o c_id=1116&dep_id=1093
is not only into CS, or at least not only into the software side of CS.
http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/topic.py?l
Here's my "ask" -
"I am a graduate student of Philosophy at a reputed University in the United States. I have had a lot of fun working towards my PhD. I have published papers and done exciting research. I should be finishing up in the next few months or so, but I would like to continue doing the same kind of work that I am doing now. One option would be to take up a post-doctoral research appointment and find myself a faculty position. I am somehow not attracted to this option because of the tenure and grant pressure. My ideal job would be something like the Greek philosophers of yester-years. Do you know of places that have that kind of environment? Coffee shops are supposed to have such an atmosphere, but my stint in one of them makes me think otherwise. Google does seem to have such an environment but I am not a CS person. Does Slashdot know of companies where bullshitting is still done in the US, without the pressure of money and immediate results?"
Not many companies are willing to pay for navel-gazing. That's just the real world.
Paper Pusher
Two questions really, can you re-locate from where you are now and do you know anyone in industry who can help you get in the door? The closest thing to a pure research unit in mechanical engineering I'm aware of is probably at the ITW Tech Center in Glenview, Illinois. I'm thinking specifically the Advanced Projects group, rather than Manufacturing Research. ITW is a good company to work for, but it would be pretty competitive and you do have to get results. I think it's really going to depend on your background. Third, you can always go the Materials route and horn in on the Materials Scientists turf since people will always hire a Mechanical Engineer before they hire a Materials Engineer. They'd rather have a good, stable, PhD grunt like yourself than some wild and crazy Material's Commando from out there U any day. So keep your chin up. It'll work out.
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
It sounds like you're looking for a place where you can do whatever you want and not have to worry about where the money will come from to do it. Sorry, but those places don't exist anymore, even if they ever did. I'm in the same boat as you are, one year down the road. I'm currently doing a postdoc at the Applied Physics Lab (part of Johns Hopkins), and I plan to re-join academia at some point.
Any place you go to, you will probably have to find funding. Some places may have in-house funding to start looking at something until you can find external funding for it. APL is such a place, and it seems to work pretty well here. I recommend looking at national labs for sure- maybe you had a bad experience, or were in a group that had a different focus than many places. Also check out government labs (air force, army, navy: whatever fits your discipline). And having been at APL for a year now, I can tell you that it is a VERY nice place to work. Employees are treated very well here and the management doesn't seem to be at all overbearing (at least in my experience). Plus the nearby town of Columbia is apparently the fourth-nicest place to live in America
At the very least, apply to all of these places, see where you get interviews, and go check them out. Talk about your concerns with the people you meet at the interview and see if that works it out for you. That's the best way to end up in a good place.
or else he might kill me.
I really hate Dan Patrick.
Intel Research works on fundamental CS and EE research, and is strongly engaged with the academic community.
From what I understand, 3M still does basic research. Perhaps this is because a number of their products historically have been serendipitous, accidental discoveries.
Anyway, here's a list of FCRCs. Maybe you'll find a home with one of them. Personally, I think you'd do better to rethink your position on academia. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/fedfunds/pubs/ffrdc/ ffrdc.txt
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
BASF Research
Batelle
BBC Research & Development
General Electric Global Research
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
Motorola Labs
Microsoft Research
HP Labs
IBM Research
Intel Research
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Philips Research
Corporate Research
The Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
Toshiba Research Europa
Toyota Central R&D Labs
Viewpoints Research Institute
I graduated in 2003.
I can, in theory, build a transistor from silicon, build a logic gate from those transistors, build a processor from those gates, write an OS to run on my system and network it to the rest of the world.
Granted i'd have to do more in-depth research to actually pull it off, but i've done each of steps in isolation and have full confidence that i could pull it off.
As it happens i mostly work in very high level stuff, but knowing what goes on under the hood has been a big help to me.
when i got my phd in physics 12 years ago (sigh)- i felt the same way. perhaps being a physicist, attaching 'applied' in front of it rang as a 'sell-out'. so, off i went to a post-doc at LLNL. that environment was very similar to the university other than once every year, people ran around, formed new groups and tried to get funding. no one really planned for longer than a year, particularly when elections were close. but, really, it was easy to find outstanding people (a big plus in my book) and as a post-doc 15% of your time you're allowed to do whatever you damn well pleased. NIST is similar, better if you have problems w/ making weapons.
...) and, in general, good highly-motivated people. another plus, for the 2.5 years here, i've worked on 5 different project- i get to constantly learn. not just new physics, but how it fits into the real world. this year one of my projects is product driven, but the research is so bloody basic that there is nothing in the literature to help. if this project works (it will go on for at least 2 more years), i'll be helping to change the world for the better, slightly (yeah, sure, GE gets to make money too).
after some consulting jobs for private industries, universities and various government labs, i ended up at an industrial research lab. while the work was applied, the focus was 6-10 years to product. in some sense, a dream job. i hated it. some because i found the work boring and mostly because my peers, in general, sucked. if i'm the brightest one in the room, there is a problem. management had no vision nor could they understand the implications of the research. but, the research was quite basic.
for the past couple years i've been w/ GE global research (upstate NY). yes, it's applied work and yes you are expected to deliver- on time and accurate results. there are projects here which are 'basic research' since it appears the business knows that if they miss out, it could hurt them. most of the work is directly product related and are typically year long duration. at the same time perhaps only 20% of the work done here get into a product. management isn't concerned- they are more concerned that the science is done correctly so that the correct business decision can be derived. i get to work w/ a variety of people (other physicists, chemists, material scientists, various engineers,
really, 'applied' and 'pure' doesn't mean much. it's the people you work with (at least in my case). don't go to a place where they only do one type of research (regardless of applied or pure)- you may end up hating it and then what?
They have a wonderful facility in Niskayuna, NY on River Road (GECRD, not power systems)
http://ge.com/research/
BBH
I was going to have you come work in my basement.
Then I remembered, I don't have a basement.
I have a different experience with national labs. The bureaucracy was not too bad at PNNL, and friends at Oak Ridge have never complained about it.
On the other hand, a lot of Los Alamos employees have complained about it.
You could visit potential employers and ask people there about the work environment, office politics, etc. That would probably also give you the best feel of your possible future co-workers.
Do you have any preference for which part(s) of the country you would like to live in?
There are some government labs that maintain this type of environment - serveral posters have mentioned NRL, where I worked for a short time years ago, and I found it to be exactly the type of basic research / applied engineering environment you describe. NASA still does basic and applied research as well, as do a number of the other labs mentioned in other posts. DOE in particular maintains a number of national labs, many of which do interesting work. NIST, in Gaithersburg MD, has a fairly large segment of its work dedicated to research. NOAA also has research facilities, but this may not be your cup of tea.
In private industry, there are a number of organizations that may fit. W.L. Gore has an excellent atmosphere and encourages innovation and play; 3M practically requires its employees to spend about 20% of their time experimenting. Other organizations you might investigate: Dow/DuPont; Texas Instruments; Motorola; Apple. There many others, but the margin of this post is too narrow to contain them.
Good luck -
If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law;
If you don't want to produce results, move back home (if mom & dad will let you) and get a job where you meet the public and serve them hamburgers.
Or become friends with a billionaire and get them to let you mooch off them like scientists in the middle-ages.
You'll have more luck with mom & dad, I'd bet.
Read this great piece from ars. It's so sad that Bell labs and its ilk don't exist anymore.
My experience with national labs is that the group and lab you're working at makes a huge difference. I've spent summers at Sandia and Oak Ridge; the difference was extraordinary.
Since you're in academics, surely you know people who have worked at each national lab before. Get anecdotes from them.
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Not sure how close a fit mechanical engineering is with what is done at MERL, but if you can find a niche there, it's a great place to work. The researchers are incredibly independent, and do all kinds of whacky and weird things that often have little to nothing to do (at first) with Mitsubishi Electric's core businesses. I was there a while back as an intern, and absolutely loved it - can't say enough great things about it. Part of the work I did there ended up as part of my PhD. A great thing too is that my contract said that I only had to notify them of my papers before publication - but that I was allowed to publish anything I wanted. How great is that? Haven't seen it anywhere else.
I've heard Google isn't at all like what you're describing - there is no such thing as a 'research' position there - 4/5 of the time must be spent on core business.
I've also heard that Microsoft Research *is* like what you are describing, but, as you say, you're not a CS type.
Good luck!
I'm still waiting for engineers to unite as a national force and come up with their own ideas to license with companies instead of doing it on the cheap for companies only to make middle-managers look good. We are paid a mere pittance compared to what
- the good ones
are worth. Really good engineers are hard to come by as the world around me is filled with poorly engineered products - look at GM and their V-6 engines for examples.What if we walked into companies and told them that we'd only ask for 10% of what we've saved them and licensed our ideas to them. We'd make a killing and the companies would finally have accountability. Anyhow, another random idea that I've been thinking about.
Engineers weren't bright enough to follow in the footsteps of attorneys or MDs by creating an artificial umbrella like the Bar Assoc. or the AMA which helps inflate their worth with national exams (i.e. we should have req'd the PE exam). It kills me to know that the engineer that created some of those medical devices (to SAVE money and lives) are paid about $60k/yr while the MDs that use them get paid hundreds of thousands per year while the costs of medicine continues to INCREASE out of the realm of affordability for so many of our fellow Americans.
-b.
20 years ago, I started out reading the newspaper during my free time at work. Then I got board with reading the same stuff but with different names and dates and moved on to playing a board game called traveler. I really liked the spacecraft construction module but working in a factory, on an assembly line, is not a good place to meet others who have the same interests so I quit doing that and moved on to reading books. That's when I fell in love with Math. Now I read books such as Space Mission Analysis and Design (Larson, 2005), Rocket Propulsion Elements (Biblarz, 2001), Space Propulsion Analysis and Design (Henry, 1995), Spacecraft System's Engineering (Wiley, 2003), Genome (Ridley, 1999) and quite a few other math heavy books. When one of them starts giving me a headache, I might get back on the computer and write some PHP script or maybe get with /. and see what all the fuss is over.
BTW, while I got your attention, what do you make of the following quote?
Anyway; yes, for sure working outside research and development all together has its advantageous for anyone with an interest in using creative thought. As an outsider looking in, it appears that more effort goes into forming accountable group-thinkers than goes into the search for solutions. Research and Development has basically become just redevelopment of what has already been developed and if you expect a positive change in development then it is better to get away from managed thinking. I might suggest that being a free thinker is better than being a paid thinker but then no one really ever gets paid for having that much fun and that's the problem.
Look there's nothing in this world that's without money pressure other than (some peoples') childhood.
The fact is, even in Bell Labs of yesteryear -- which, don't forget, was a monopoly utility -- you'd better believe that there was a lot of competition. It may not have been explicitly for money, but just simply for "resources," like lab space and good people, the smart people had best be smart - at least widely recognized to be so by their peers if not the "bean-counters."
What you're confusing here is a first-job vs. a career. You want a career where, once you've proven yourself, it's relatively easy to be "valued" in a financial sense -- someone said something like this earlier, with respect of being to raise your children in the style you were raised; though I think that's not 100% controllable, that's the right idea.
So you need to think about not what you'll be doing 3 years out of school, but what you'll be doing in 15 years. See if you can visualize your life. If you want to be an expert in an intellectual domain, that's going to be in academia, because as yet you can't PUBLISH openly from within corporate labs, and so any impressive things you do will have to be obvious via patent search or word of mouth, but not because other academic departments request you to come travel to their conference and speak to their students about your current thoughts.
Still if you're working for government contract, you might not be able to say much. It's about openness and dialog, not about money. You will have to convince people throughout your life that you're worth money until your reputation has built to the point where everyone, pretty much, is convinced. That's just the way it goes.
There are Technology Transfer entities that reside between academia and corporations specifically in order to facilitate openness, and these might be helpful to you.
If you're female, you also might want to check out pay disparity research based on having procreated -- which reflect in part an idea surrounding a "good mother" in the U.S. being obessed with their child (i.e. not being obsessed => not a good mother) something that is not evidently assumed elsewhere in the world, notably in Europe. You don't mention whether you definitely must be in the United States.
It's also noteworthy that, to the best of my knowledge, only Stanford is willing to "time-out" the ticking clock of achieving tenure because of childbirth -- this is a very recent development on their part due to examining attracting top-notch faculty who are women. Implicit virtually throughout the US employment scene is the assumption that there's no one else in the universe a caring and loving mom would be willing to allow to take care of offspring and thereby lop off all kinds of opportunities and thereby financial remuneration to moms - up to 44% of pay, in fact. Or, of course, women just opt out and forego a challenging career because they don't perceive any alternative to fighting biased employment policies since the bias is only implicit. There's a (male) economist from Harvard who is also studying this phenomenon for non-white male cultures: that it's so much easier to succeed in an environment that doesn't require constantly fighting that people forego pay, status, and future career visibility in order to avoid constantly bumping up against implicit bias.
There is no good solution to this, but you should be aware of it in your negotiations particularly if you're female but also if you're married to a woman for whom this type of situation would be relevant.