Re:The rise and fall of the industrial R&D lab
by wenc on Sunday August 30, 2020 @03:11PM
(#24325112)
I can't say I follow that logic.
It's true that human benefits and profit don't always align at all points of contact. They do align at some.
Hence I don't think it's true that for-profit systems that are not focused on "making things that benefit humanity" do not actually benefit humanity. Bell Labs clearly has, even though it has had a concomitant commercial objective.
Conversely, it is also not true that not-for-profit systems necessarily produce human benefits -- sure, they can, but not always.
I worked in an university applied research setting for close to a decade before joining industry. I can tell you the incentives and pressures to produce something that "works in practice" and is "commercializable" (whether it is actually done or not) is much greater in industry. Not-for-profit environments are better for long-range explorations with high failure rates and uncertain outcomes, i.e. basic research. For-profit environments are better at the discipline of producing applied knowledge (whether it is actually applied or not).
That said, Germany has a hybrid model called the Fraunhofer model (Fraunhofer Societies do applied research and is 70% funded by industry/government) which produced the MP3 standard. So there are alternatives. But I'm not convinced the industrial R&D model is fatally flawed.
It's true that human benefits and profit don't always align at all points of contact. They do align at some.
Hence I don't think it's true that for-profit systems that are not focused on "making things that benefit humanity" do not actually benefit humanity. Bell Labs clearly has, even though it has had a concomitant commercial objective.
Conversely, it is also not true that not-for-profit systems necessarily produce human benefits -- sure, they can, but not always.
I worked in an university applied research setting for close to a decade before joining industry. I can tell you the incentives and pressures to produce something that "works in practice" and is "commercializable" (whether it is actually done or not) is much greater in industry. Not-for-profit environments are better for long-range explorations with high failure rates and uncertain outcomes, i.e. basic research. For-profit environments are better at the discipline of producing applied knowledge (whether it is actually applied or not).
That said, Germany has a hybrid model called the Fraunhofer model (Fraunhofer Societies do applied research and is 70% funded by industry/government) which produced the MP3 standard. So there are alternatives. But I'm not convinced the industrial R&D model is fatally flawed.