Searching for a Modern-Day Equivalent to Bell Labs

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the search for a modern equivalent to Bell Labs, exploring whether such institutions exist today and what their characteristics might be. Participants consider the historical context of Bell Labs and its transformation over time, as well as the current landscape of research institutions, both in industry and government.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that Bell Labs still exists under Lucent-Alcatel, though it is not the same as the original.
  • Others argue that modern equivalents to the old Bell Labs are lacking, citing changes in the nature of research and funding.
  • Some mention IBM's labs as similar but note they have also shifted towards conventional R&D.
  • A participant proposes that NTT Basic Research in Japan might be an exception, although it relies on government grants for funding.
  • There is a discussion about the impact of deregulation on Bell Labs and the shift towards profit-driven research in industry.
  • Some participants highlight the role of National Labs in conducting basic research, questioning whether they fulfill the same role as industry-funded labs.
  • Concerns are raised about the future of funding for both government and industry research, particularly in light of cuts to tax-revenue funding.
  • One participant expresses a desire to recreate Bell Labs, suggesting that state-supported industries might be necessary for such a model.
  • There is a debate about the differences between government-funded and industry-funded labs, with some suggesting that industry labs are more profit-driven and have a shorter-term focus.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence of a modern equivalent to Bell Labs. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the nature of current research institutions and the impact of funding sources on research priorities.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the future of research funding and the implications of industry versus government support. There are references to historical changes in the telecommunications industry and the evolution of research priorities over time.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and professionals in the fields of physics, engineering, and research management, as well as those curious about the evolution of research institutions and funding models.

afrocod
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I will be going to university next year and I've really fell in love with the idea of working somewhere like the old Bell Labs. What I want to know is... Is there a modern day equivalent to Bell Labs (anywhere in the world) or have I created an unattainable dream, rooted in a long forgotten past?

Thanks in advance, I scoured the internet for the answer with no luck.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A "modern day equivalent" to Bell Labs is Bell Labs. It's now run by "Lucent-Alcatel" but it still exists.
 
HallsofIvy said:
A "modern day equivalent" to Bell Labs is Bell Labs. It's now run by "Lucent-Alcatel" but it still exists.

Well knock me over with a feather... ha ha.. thanks...
 
Doc Al said:
www.bell-labs.com/

http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/portal/BellLabs

It's not like the 'old' Bell Labs, but it's something.

As far as I've been told/read it is indeed quite different from the old Bell Labs in terms of the research done, how "free" the researchers are to pursue blue sky research etc.
IBM used to run a few labs that were somewhat similar to Bell Labs, but although they do still formally exist (e.g. Yorktown Heights) they have changed a lot and are now more like conventional R&D centres.

So, no there are AFAIK no modern day equivalents to the old Bell Labs (the one exception I can think of is NTT Basic Research in Japan, but they get most of their funding for academic research from government grants, not from NTT)
 
f95toli said:
As far as I've been told/read it is indeed quite different from the old Bell Labs in terms of the research done, how "free" the researchers are to pursue blue sky research etc.
IBM used to run a few labs that were somewhat similar to Bell Labs, but although they do still formally exist (e.g. Yorktown Heights) they have changed a lot and are now more like conventional R&D centres.

So, no there are AFAIK no modern day equivalents to the old Bell Labs (the one exception I can think of is NTT Basic Research in Japan, but they get most of their funding for academic research from government grants, not from NTT)

Ah, I was expecting something like that, I wasn't sure though... Thanks for that info...
 
On my "todo list", one of the items is "recreate Bell labs".

One other item is "get people back on the moon"

As far as "how" I'm going to do that. Well...

Bell labs was possible because you had a state supported highly-regulated corporation that needed to do basic research in order to convince the powers that be not to remove its government support.

Now telecommunications is no longer quasi-state supported highly-regulated industries. But... You can take a look out there and see if there are any other state supported highly-regulated industries that hire large numbers of Ph.D.'s.

As far as 2). Something that I'd like to do in the next five to ten years is to do convince the head of major non-US power (probably China) to give a speech saying "we are going to moon, anyone else that wants to race us there can go ahead."
 
Last edited:
twofish-quant said:
Bell labs was possible because you had a state supported highly-regulated corporation that needed to do basic research in order to convince the powers that be not to remove its government support.

Now telecommunications is no longer quasi-state supported highly-regulated industries. But... You can take a look out there and see if there are any other state supported highly-regulated industries that hire large numbers of Ph.D.'s.
That's not exactly true. Sure, being a state-sanctioned monopoly helps, but AT&T agreed to the breakup of the Baby Bells partially because the DOJ was threatening to take away Western Electric, which Bell Labs was part of. AT&T management at the time believed that R&D was a key point for their survival. The real destruction of Bell Labs happened quite a bit after the deregulation of the telecom industry (a decade or so, when it became Lucent and got the “big red zero” logo). It came about when business degrees that had no business in the technical field took over and wanted 200% ROI within a week on everything. That's why there are no basic research labs in industry today. Every research project has to have an immediate goal.

There are lots of PhDs in the telecom/semiconductor industry, but it's for applied research. The more basic research is outsourced to universities and government labs by the industry, so maybe it's actually better that way: less dependence on tax-revenue funding, which is dropping fast.
 
caffenta said:
The real destruction of Bell Labs happened quite a bit after the deregulation of the telecom industry (a decade or so, when it became Lucent and got the “big red zero” logo). It came about when business degrees that had no business in the technical field took over and wanted 200% ROI within a week on everything.

The business degrees and the idea that everything has to have an immediate profit happened because of an social philosophy that was part of the deregulation idea. The idea is that the market always knows best so what you should do is to let the market run everything. If it turns out that if the market wants no basic research in industry, that's supposedly a good thing. More efficient.

The more basic research is outsourced to universities and government labs by the industry, so maybe it's actually better that way: less dependence on tax-revenue funding, which is dropping fast.

Except that tax-revenue funding is getting cut and that's going to hit the universities and government labs pretty badly.
 
  • #10
twofish-quant said:
On my "todo list", one of the items is "recreate Bell labs".

ie. a basic research lab funded by industry?

Is some of the stuff done at Google research basic enough? On the other hand, it's mainly statistics, which has a long history of being industry-related, all the way back to Student's t-test.
 
  • #11
Except that tax-revenue funding is getting cut and that's going to hit the universities and government labs pretty badly.

I agree, the added funding coming from industry probably won't be enough to offset the drop in tax-based funding, unfortunately.

Industry research is actually not bad, even now. Having a clear goal has its advantages. And when the wind blows your way, there's no shortage of funding. $$ :cool:
 
  • #12
twofish-quant said:
On my "todo list", one of the items is "recreate Bell labs". "

Keep me posted... twofish-quant for president!
 
  • #13
No one has mentioned the National Labs. Quite a bit of basic research is done in these government funded labs, including Livermore, Los Alamos, Sandia, Oak Ridge, Fermilab, Argonne, Brookhaven, NREL, INEEL ... I'm sure I've forgotten some. Afrocod - would these be what you are looking for, or do you specifically want an industry-funded lab?
 
  • #14
phyzguy said:
No one has mentioned the National Labs. Quite a bit of basic research is done in these government funded labs, including Livermore, Los Alamos, Sandia, Oak Ridge, Fermilab, Argonne, Brookhaven, NREL, INEEL ... I'm sure I've forgotten some. Afrocod - would these be what you are looking for, or do you specifically want an industry-funded lab?

What would be the difference between a government funded lab and an industry funded one?
 
  • #15
afrocod said:
What would be the difference between a government funded lab and an industry funded one?

Back in the golden old days before the split of AT&T, none. Now, industry-funded labs tend to have very short view on basic research and are very profit-driven. It is why Bell labs have gotten out of basic fundamental research (I think they've gotten out of superconductivity research, for example).

When Bell labs decided to ramp down on its effort in these basic areas, the National Labs are the ones being given the burden to carry on such work.

Zz.
 
  • #16
@zapper

you say burden like it's a negative thing. is it?
 
  • #17
flemmyd said:
you say burden like it's a negative thing. is it?

If you are given more to do. and no more money to do it, then yes it is a burden. One of the things that I worry is happening in the US is that people are burning seed corn. Basic research doesn't pay off for 20 to 30 years, and if you are looking only at now, then you cut it, and then things go downhill.

What really worries me is that until recently, the people that generally wanted less government spending also tended to want more defense programs, which meant that even when the budget ax fell, you could get money for basic research through the military. With even that being cut, I have huge worries about the long term ability of the US to do science.

The thing that really, really worries me is that there is a slow brain drain in science talent that I don't think most Americans are quite aware of.
 
  • #18
flemmyd said:
@zapper

you say burden like it's a negative thing. is it?

One problem is that national labs and similar institutes in the US and elsewhere are increasingly engaged in the type of research that was previously done by industry. And since -as has already been mentioned- the budgets haven't been increased that means less money and fewer resources go to fundamental and (applied) blue sky research.
 

Similar threads

Life Advice | Should I go for a Second Major in Physics?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Other Leaving Italy? Is It the Right Choice? Expert Advice & Tips
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
I'm not sure I want to go into the field I'm going into
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Physics Unsure of my future in physics
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Physics Junior in High School seeking guidance for future career in Physics
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
Modern Digital Audio: Understanding Dither and Oversampling in Hi-Res Age
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
Career plan for a science enthusiast.
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Engineering From engineering BSc to Physics MSc
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate In the future, an Exobyte of astronomical data per day
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Yet another writer in search of a catastrophe
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K