There are two approaches to research. For this discussion, we will call them “Bell Labs” or “Manhattan Project” approaches, according to some of the best research ever performed in the US, but with two approaches that could not be more different.
The Manhattan project was motivated by a threat of National and International proportion: The world was at the threat to be taken over by a regime that did not stand for freedom and liberty. The Manhattan project, led my renowned physicist Oppenheimer, was arguably one of the most successful leaders of science, pulling together the best of the best, to achieve something almost impossible, and historic.
Much has been written about this time, and many accounts are very memorable. Working at Los Alamos was not easy. The combined pressures of the political world, and the uncertainty caused by the fact that much in the Manhattan project was both breakthrough engineering, and even novel science, led to a highly challenging work environment on both the professional and personal levels. But, it also led to one of the most relevant technological victories in the 20th century.
Contrast this research approach with Bell Labs in the twentieth century. Despite its name, which implies “applied research to help Bell”; Bell Labs was a hot-bed for innovation and discoveries, possibly unmatched with respect to its transformative nature for our lives today. Inventions, such as the Laser, the transistor, programming languages, and many more bubbled up, by using two key principles: 1) Hire the best of the best; 2) Let them work. One of the best descriptions of these principles is by Nobel-prize winning scientist Charles Townes in his book on the Laser. The productivity of Bell Labs was not managed top-down, but very much related to the intelligence of the individuals working there, and the tremendous atmosphere offered by the Labs.
University research in leading universities, such as the University of Michigan, is generally organized according to the Bell Labs model. We try to hire the best of the best, and let them work and evolve into leaders in their fields.
Each Professor has tremendous freedom in her pursuit of academic excellence. In fact, she can come in one morning, and start an entirely new lab focused on something so different; it does not even fit into her specific department.
But, there is one key difference. Basically, all funding has to be brought into her research group through proposals to the government, the non-profit sector, or private industry. Even though that has tremendous advantages, because it forces the professor to explain and compete, raising research funds often turns into a nearly full-time job. Depending on the size of the group, Professors write 5-10 proposals each year. Some of these proposals are for big-bucks—a half a million to five million dollars for some of them, especially the ones with private industry, are sometimes for much less than fifty thousand, or hundred thousand.
This is a major difference between Bell Labs and University research which is important in more ways than one. Most importantly, it is extremely difficult to find research funding with broad objectives, the specialty of Bell. There have been attempts by the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense and most recently, by the Department of Energy, to create such creative environments with a long time-line.
But, research culture in a given group is often determined by the need to raise funds, work tactical as opposed to strategic, and play it safe, rather than risky. I have almost never been successful proposing breakthrough research, but have been very successful winning money in the field I know very, very well and for which I can outline and very well understand the next steps forward.
University researchers deal with this in different ways. Are they staying in their field, often turning into big leaders in a rather narrow field? Are they pushing the envelope? Are they managing to use their experience in a given field to break into a new field, or to dramatically enhance the impact of their research beyond the realms of their specialty? Are they leaving the University to serve the US, to enter industry?
Research strategy in a given field is very difficult to assess from the outside. It is often challenging to figure out whether there is breakthrough research no matter what the approach, as pointed out by Charles Townes. Townes worked in a field which was considered old-fashioned – optics – before he invented the Maser, leading to tremendously rich applications of lasers in many parts of our lives. But, there is a danger to plowing the same field over and over again as it may become harder and harder to find breakthroughs. The trick is to “turn over the rocks by the wayside”, as Townes suggests, and that’s where new things come from, not by doing the very same thing better and better.
Thus, the University environment offers many opportunities to do research according to the Bell Labs style – self-motivated researchers doing fantastic and new work. But, there is a risk to react to the current funding environment and internal and external pressures and become tactical, rather than strategic; turn narrow rather than broad; and to miss opportunities that initially appear peripheral to the research thrust.
The next post will propose that a small number of Manhattan-style, targeted projects might provide tremendous opportunities for the current research environment, and at the same time provide tremendous entrepreneurial potential for the University and its research enterprise.
October 19th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
very nice…