Edison and His Laboratory

Abstract

Upon perusing the 11 December issue of Science (p. [1997][1]), I found in Bettyann Holtzmann Kevles's review of the book Edison: A Life of Invention by Paul Israel, the following about Thomas Edison's laboratory: “Nevertheless, Israel explains, Edison's laboratory was never really more than an overgrown workshop.” The man who gave us automated telegraphy, mimeograph copiers, incandescent lighting systems, talking machines, the Edison effect, telephones that worked, electric locomotives, superior storage batteries, cinematic films, and other epic items deserves better. ![Figure][2] Was Thomas Edison a “tinkerer” with an “overgrown workshop” for a laboratory?CREDIT: JOE SUTLIFF Calling Edison's laboratory an “overgrown workshop” does not do justice to either his laboratory or workshops in general. It is the workshops within laboratories that make them effective. Try to imagine Faraday or J. J. Thomson without their “workshops.” Or, more recently, E. O. Lawrence. If Edison's laboratory was not a model for General Electric's (GE's) laboratory, then why did its first version, Steinmetz's barn, look so much like Menlo Park? And why did GE's laboratory have a large machine shop, a precision instrument shop, a metalworking shop, a vacuum-tube shop, a foundry and forge shop, a glass-blowing shop, and more? If Edison depended on “knowledge achieved through tinkering, rather than research” (again quoting from the review), why was his desk at the East Orange, New Jersey, site located in the center of the atrium of a magnificent multistoried library? Tinkerer indeed! The very tube I am writing this on uses his “effect,” and his technological advances, for its operation. Why can't we just adore this giant personality? [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.282.5396.1997 [2]: pending:yes