Slashdot Mirror
Bell Labs Kills Fundamental Physics Research
An anonymous reader writes with this snippet from Wired: "After six Nobel Prizes, the invention of the transistor, laser and countless contributions to computer science and technology, it is the end of the road for Bell Labs' fundamental physics research lab. Alcatel-Lucent, the parent company of Bell Labs, is pulling out of basic science, material physics and semiconductor research and will instead be focusing on more immediately marketable areas such as networking, high-speed electronics, wireless, nanotechnology and software." Jamie points out this list of Bell Labs' accomplishments at Wikipedia, including little things like the UNIX operating system.
when the next laser, the next solid state transistor, is invented, it will be done in China and India
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Fundamental physics research, while wonderful, does seem a bit much of a company which no longer has a monopoly to tax Americans to fund stuff like that.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
of the "all that matters is the next quarter" school of thought? Between that and over the top IP laws, North America is headed for trouble.
I think I speak for many when I say...
Well FUCK!
So what if it's not immediately marketable. The goodwill alone is worth some investment.
Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
"will instead be focusing on more immediately marketable areas such as networking, high-speed electronics, wireless, nanotechnology and software."
If they truly wanted to focus on these areas, and the future of these areas, they would continue the research. Bell/Lucent would not be where they are today without those now basic, but groundbreaking at the time discoveries that they've made in the past.
This seems very shortsighted of them, which unfortunately seems to be the new American way.
With no basic materials science or semiconductor research, I'm not sure what they're going to be able to develop in the fields of "high-speed electronics" or "nanotechnology". Perhaps they're going to restructure so that the existing basic science researchers are more "product driven", being put into marketable research areas with specific goals, but that strikes me as a sure-fire way of duplicating effort and limiting their scope for innovation.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Fundamental physics research has really taken on a life of its own, and is conducted with really big, really expensive toys.
I don't think Lucent now (or even Bell back in the day) could really justify building something like the Large Hadron Collider.
So, yes, a lot of good work was done, but perhaps they've gone as far as they can within the constraints of what's reasonable for them to do as an entity.
And hey, if the best and brightest minds on their payroll instead work on something that makes my connection faster, it's not like I'm gonna complain.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
They can live anywhere. It's just another venue with certain advantages and disadvantages.
Research? Bell will outsource it to a jobber in India and sell it to Europe or some other highest bidder.
Anyone who thinks the MBA-sshole who made this decision gives a rat's patoot about any particular country is just naive.
It's beginning to look more Rome's last century; Emperors being crowned amidst the decay of the once-great city, old monoliths being torn down to make new ones, because the coin had been so devalued that no one could afford to pay artisans of any skill.
Little by little the American Empire erodes, its more distant conquests taxing it more and more, its currency faltering, more of its talent having to be imported.
I'm looking the Democratic National Convention and its soon-to-come Republican counterpart, and I can't help but thinking that they are indeed fiddling while Rome burns.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It is all the stupid patent issues. It has become that you can't even write a new OS without it being attacked by patent threats, let alone anything in hardware.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Who in American industry is still doing basic research?
The small companies and start ups.
Welcome to modern western culture... it's all about making a quick buck.
Modern? At what point wasn't it like that?
Any and every company out there is all about making as much money as possible as quickly as possible... what ever happend to making a modest amount of money while actually taking risks?
You can do that with your own money. Making as much money as possible as quickly as possible is pretty much the point of capitalism, where you're using other people's money.
Advice: on VPS providers
Please get your facts right, as it's a discredit to the people who did the original pioneering work in this field. Thanks.
So... who actually did the original pioneering then...? Discredit and no credit at all could be considered the same.
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
china or india aren't doing basic research either, i was merely making an appeal to nationalism
why do nations invest billions in space programs? its nothing but tribal chest thumping. now you can complain that nations should invest in space programs and basic research for noble goals, or you can swallow your high-mindedness and appeal to what gets you cash. appeal to tribal pride, and you will squeeze some coin out for basic research
scare americans with stories about chinese and indian basic research. forget the truth or distruth or mistruth or truthiness of those stories. just make an appeal to nationalism. in this way, you will get american funding for basic research
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Who of course had absolutely nothing to do with the original invention of the transistor. Which of course was what this thread was about (and not the Solid State transistor).
Looking for cheap karma via thread hijacking, are we?
In the past, the basic science was led by companies like Bell. They could reason the money they spent with the lack of innovation in the field. Now the basic science is led by universities -- exactly how it is supposed to be. Companies can have their problem worked on by paying a fraction of what they pay to their employees (in academia these people are named either phd student or postdoc). My wife is a postdoc and their projects are funded by the industry. They are trying to solve very theoretical problems. The company couldn't explain spending money on this to their shareholders, but now they can explain it with industry-academia partnership. Academia wins, industry wins. Also, we saw this before when MERL closed part of its research lab. Didn't you notice where most departing researchers go? Yes, academia.
here's hoping Alcatel-Lucent loses a lot of money quickly and opens it back up.
Haha, oh please. You and I both know what they'll do: They'll lay off more people and try to cut expenses as much as possible. They won't spend more money.
It's a three tier system now. Colleges do all the research, the government funds it, and corporations patent the results.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
We are becoming an economy of people selling insurance to each other. We don't make build or invent much of anything anymore. And the few things we are good at the Christian fundamentalists make sure never get done.
I remember the same thoughts being shared with me in 98. And in 88, and in 78. What people forget is Rome 'fell' for a very, very long time and 'fell' for a number of reasons.
No, this isn't a great development. But there should be some corollary to Godwin's that covers comparing stuff to the "Fall of the Roman Empire".
This goes back to the breakup of the monopoly. Once the higher profits were no longer sustainable combined with the litigious society we live in, sustaining a pure R&D department became unsustainable. If a company can't make money in the middle term, how can it turn a profit in the long term or short terms.
I think Alcatel-Lucent is dead. It is too bad, they should have taken a page from Cisco's book.
Crap! I just kissed my karma good-bye.
If you cannot see the fundamental difference between a vakuum tube (electrostatic principle) and a solid state device (exploiting of the bandgap, the whole new dimension of doting semiconductors), i cannot help you.
One was a neat invention, the other a revolution that opened a huge new field of solid state physics AND a completely turn the world of technology upside down...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Of course, if you posit the elimination of "government and private financing" for any industry, it is equivalent to assuming the elimination of the industry. So what?
My problem is that there are those who erroneously believe that government should completely step out of the world of fundamental science funding (I presumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the original responder, who suggested that "startups" are doing this work, was among them). My belief is that, if you do this, those university facilities that you made mention of will disappear. Combine that with the continued shutdown of large private labs, and guess what: no one will be performing fundamental science in the United States. Now, you may not believe that's a bad thing, but I do, and I believe the right-wingers are living in a fantasy world if they believe that market forces will solve this problem.
Which is... how? What magic tricks should the US perform that will encourage businesses to invest large funds in long-term science that may or may not have any payoff, short-term or long? How is taking one's hands off the market going to encourage such work when market forces explicitly work against such efforts (as this very story demonstrates).
Who said the market wants to invest in the long-term science? Maybe the new landscape of freer markets will promote more competition among companies to produce technological achievements quicker, in order to get a leg up on their competitors. Long-term science might fade away, but that isn't to say an increase in short term research cannot accelerate the development of whatever field they are researching in. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
No, it would not, because a business is interested in optimizing short- to medium-term profits, as you say by creating "marketable products/services", which rules out long-term fundamental science. But no libertarian will admit to that, as you yourself demonstrate.
Umm... only publicly traded companies have those demands on them. Private companies can execute their strategies as they see fit, no matter how ill-fated their decisions may be.
We're talking about fundamental research, here, not donating to your local pet shelter. If you can't see the difference, there's little point in continuing this discussion.
In your opinion, this is fundamental research. With such an opinion, you would be someone who donated to research labs that did research in what you determine to be fundamental research. Other people will think different things, and they can give to those causes. You see how that works? Your opinion is not the same as mine, but you seem to think it is fine to impose your opinions upon all, through government in this case; whereas I think everyone has a right to their opinion no matter what I think and I have no right to tell them what they can or cannot do with their money, especially in the context of charity.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
There the same thing. You apply voltage to open up another voltage pathway/ Or turn it off.
Yes, solid state opened up a huge industry(duh) but that doesn't change the fact that the transistor concept has been implemented for over 100 years.
oh, and the tube transistor change a shit load of things as well. Home radio was an amazing change to home technology and to the culture.
There is no device that couldn't be built with tubes, it would just be freaking huge and need a nuclear reactor to power.
Again, there is no fundamental difference between tube transistor and silicone. There is a bunch of SPECIFIC difference. The idea is exactly the same.
If you can't understand basic electronics and electronic history, I can not help you.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Making as much money as possible as quickly as possible is pretty much the point of capitalism No.
Sorry: yes. If you take my money (capital) in order to make money with it, I want you to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible. If not, I will give it to someone else. Scale that notion up and you have explained the capital markets.
Advice: on VPS providers
I of course don't know the inside story, but sounds stupid enough. If this is the case, here's hoping Alcatel-Lucent loses a lot of money quickly and opens it back up.
Of course, if they lose a lot of money quickly, they'll be even *less* likely to open it back up. Fundamental research is incompatible with the short-term thinking that the current stock market rewards.
Sadly, I think that this is goodbye.
I would argue that decisions like this are to a large extent the result of a way of thinking specifically associated with business schools and their MBA graduates. It is a type of thinking that looks at the operations of businesses through the lens of a limited set of parameters, as if these parameters can be a substitute for concrete knowledge of the nuts and bolts details of a company's operations. MBA thinking causes managers to close their minds, to limit their decisions to what is immediately measurable and graphable. Extreme adherents to this way of thinking often fail to see the big picture in their business and in the economy.
The best example of this that I can think of occurred during the Mad Cow crisis in the UK a few years ago. In the lead-up to that crisis, MBA manager types were loathe to listen to the warning signs about growing incidents of BSE found in British cattle. They didn't want to act because they feared it would have a drastic impact on their bottom line profits. Although they clearly saw the huge costs of pre-emptive action to deal with the disease, what they failed to see were the costs of inaction. They didn't understand that their inaction would lead to the destruction of the entire British cattle stock. They failed to see that the British meat industry would remain a pariah for many years to come. They failed to balance the huge cost of acting pre-emptively with the destruction of their entire industry as a result of inaction.
Another example occurred when Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard changed that corporation from one of the most creative companies in the world to a commondity PC maker, whose main contribution to the economy is in marketing and distribution. More recently, Maple Leaf foods of Canada has had to institute a massive meat recall, due to Listeria contamination. The contamination was due to its nickel and diming of its quality assurance and sanitation departments. This recall, and the ensuing lawsuits could result in the destruction of the company. All caused because bean counters wanted to save a few dollars on bacterial testing and cleaning.
I am saying what I am because I genuinely believe it. I believe that the people running most of our corporations have little sense of history, of culture, and little sense of what actually makes our economy work. I once had a conversation with an MBA type in which he argued that food was not economically important because it only made up 3% of the Gross Domestic Product. I'd like to see what would happen if he reduced his food budget to zero.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
The problem is that we're quickly losing the ability to think and act for ourselves. Britain is a perfect picture of what happens when you follow that road. A lot of British I talk to simply can't comprehend why you ought to carry a gun, pay for your own healthcare, or prefer terrorists over big brother. We don't seem to realize that our freedoms are being eroded by a pressure-washer congress. Just yesterday there was that Slashdot article about wind power advocating that the Feds mandate/fund a new electrical grid. Uncle Sam is already worse than broke. Quit aggravating the problem.
I was listening to an old Ronald Reagan broadcast the other day, and he talked about how Social Security initially promised that you'd never pay more than $.03 on the dollar. What a laugh. Social Security is looking to pay out trillions more than it has in coming years, and guess who will pay the bill? You'd make more money if your put your retirement into a savings account than into Social Security.
Also, the FDIC is slowly but surely ruining our financial economy. Why do you think lenders gave out so many subprime loans? Because the owners know that whatever happens, they are personally immune. Why do people no longer care to ensure that the S&L's they put their money in are financially sound? Because they know that they are immune, all this thanks to the FDIC, which Congress paid $166 billion to bail out in '89. Folks, there is no such thing as free lunch. Unless we can get the government to quit fiddling with the economy and loosen the grip of the environmentalists on the energy resources we already posses within out borders, we are going to continue to fall.
You'd think that after 200 years we'd get the idea; the best market is a market left alone. It actually works. We didn't get where we are by relying on Uncle Sam to bail us out of everything. Look at a chart of per cent deviation in business activity. Things go up and down and up and down, and then there is a sudden boom in 1928. By the end of 1929 deviation is negative, and by '32 it's almost -50%. Then it rises steadily until '38, when it falls nearly as low as it did in '32. We recovered from the depression in spite of the New Deal, not because of it.
Now Congress is looking to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, simply because they control half of America's mortgages (~$10 trillion) . No company is "too big" to let fail. If we continue to reward financial irresponsibility, it will only get worse in the future. True, it wouldn't be pretty if something that huge fell flat, but postponing it will only make the future worse.
It's high time we quit turning to Congress to solve our problems. We need real, long-term solutions to problems. Our children should not have to reap the fruits of our irresponsibility.
The government can't save you.
also, running a division renowned for state-of-the-art research attracts top talent to your company, which in turn attracts more talent and creates a fertile research atmosphere. then all you need is to actually take advantage of this pool of talent you have at your disposal. don't be like Xerox and spend all this money on research and then let another company steal the results and bring it to market first.
IBM researchers whom I've talked to at APS meetings say they must either produce something to fund their research or get outside funding. The answer was to compete with academic labs for federal grants and do contract research for other companies. The problem is this takes away what made the industrial labs so great: the ability of a scientist to work on what they felt was important rather than do what some grant reviewer thought was important.
It isn't the business schools, it's the people. Good MBA programs focus on improving the value of a business, both long and short term, which requires nuts-and-bolts knowledge. Unfortunately, the most self-centered folks in the USA (or greater, for all I know,) figure a business education will show them how to use the capitalist system to their advantage, working toward doing whatever is needed to stroke their egos, including writing a resume that inflates their "paper-route" to "managing district distribution and revenue collection functions for a citywide printing enterprise." The board or powers-that-be of their prospective employer are often too busy to see past the smoke, or are too limited in thought to look outside of their limited search, and end up employing the great, lying, salesman as a manager in a position needing critical thought rather than the extremely qualified candidate who is very slightly outside of their nanoradian focus. I've seen similar thinking in many HR departments - someone with no direct experience but lots of otherwise stellar relevant experience is passed over in favor of someone who had years of lackluster experience.
Back to the Executive cycle - Once the egotistical, lying, salesman has his position, the folks with MBAs who adhere to principles such as long-term-profitability, accounting standards and procedures, risk management, and sustainability are shown the door, since unexpected large short term profits get a bigger ego boost to the egotistical lying salesman than sustained long-term above-sector-average performance. Thus, long term profitability is traded for short term results, and the lying, egotistical salesmem get bonuses and severance packages.
This cycle is self-perpetuating, since the egotistical, lying, salesman hires (or is hired by) folks with similar personality attributes, even though they may be unqualified for the position, so that there is mutual support of their incompetent decisions. After these folks wring all of the short term profit out of a particular business, and everyone realizes what happened, they resign, and move on to looking for the next job, with a resume bullet of "increased profitability XX% in X quarters", which others who are too lazy to research will find impressive, and then hire to run their business (in to the ground), restarting the cycle.
Not that I have personally seen it, or anything like that...
I think this is the wrong take on this story. Bell is getting rid of its Labs because telephones are a solved problem. The people doing basic materials research are the people whose business it is actually relevant to today: Intel and IBM and CNSE.
Bigot. The world needs both idealists and realists.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. --- George Bernard Shaw
I work for an R&D department. Nothing we're working is even remotely advanced, just ways of rehashing the same old crap...
That's because R&D departments are, in most cases, more about D than about R.
Kind of like taking lunch money away. Without getting in trouble by explaining the funding model (which may have changed), let's just say it wasn't always working out for both parties involved. The hate went both ways too.
If you were a researcher and had a business funded project, you had to stop research and be a developer full time until the project was ready. This meant you were expected to be on a typically tight development schedule, leaving no time for papers, conferences, new research etc. You had to basically be an engineer for a year or two. I guess I didn't understand their pain, but they agreed with each other it is torture.
On the other hand, the business side (which weren't all or significantly MBAs, most were EEs/CSs) had the usual deadlines/deliverables/initiatives/targets/metrics model. We scoff at such trivialities! For them it's very real, I did not understand myself until I came to my present employer in a pure development role. People are fired over these things, but I remember us talking over the water cooler about the business "nonsense" and "small minds". It is how we might laugh at women in the middle east wearing head to toe clothing in the heat, but they get their heads chopped off if they don't...it's just an impedance mismatch.
Further, if you were in BL in a roughly business aligned area, all was not well. Any new product idea which even sounded like it might somehow compete with an existing product was squashed. You had to get external funding, work within your pathetically small internal budget, or basically submarine it and take it out of the company. This happened a lot, there were a few groups who were very disloyal to the company and just using it for a salary in between start-ups, the old-boy network ensured they'd land on their feet.
At least when I left the situation was dire. The research side didn't want to get picked up on a project, and the business side didn't really want to waste time on new development and would rather wait and see, and buy successful companies (either to get their product, or to squish their product). Unfortunately since telecom is so driven by monopolies, there isn't the push to innovate, in fact the contrary. Why make something new, when you can keep selling something old? I personally believe DSL only happened because of the telecom act of '96 forced access provision. Once that went away (or was otherwise nerfed), almost as the first act of the Dubya administration...new projects stopped overnight. Lights out.
So even if they suddenly got billions of dollars, I don't see them embracing research again. They'd just sit on it and use it strategically, waiting for products they want/need to emerge on their own.