Research, Ownership, Misconduct—Readers Respond

Abstract

So pervasive are the contradictions in Robert Laughlin’s disingenuous view of research in industrial laboratories that it is not easy to know where to begin the counter-argument.Having spent many years as a researcher and manager in an industrial laboratory, I came to understand that companies investing in basic research do not think of it as “charity or part of an advertising budget.” For a century, corporation-funded basic research has been a prolific driver of the technical revolution on which the world’s economy is increasingly built, human health improved, and national security enhanced. Without these impacts, it would be hard to justify the large investments, by both government and industry, in both basic and applied science. And contrary to Laughlin’s assertion, basic research continues to flourish in corporate laboratories where it is embedded in a balanced research portfolio and is highly valued by its corporate investor.I discount Laughlin’s assertion that “research linked to property has a built-in conflict of interest toward the truth” as being even less credible than it would be if “personal success and recognition” were substituted for “property.” True, research is linked to property; something of economic value is created. However, it is patently false and contrary to experience that “intellectual property—knowledge that one can sell— … must be kept secret.” Were it so, it would be hard to understand how the top industrial laboratories developed their reputations as generators of knowledge. Patents are often used by both industry and universities to obtain a fair return on the commercial use by others of their knowledge and invention. The patent ensures that the knowledge is not kept secret but is freely shared. It is only the commercial exploitation of that knowledge that raises the subject of royalties. Thus it seems naive and a barrier to clear thinking to believe that “we must choose between creating knowledge and creating property.” Whenever we create knowledge, we create property; the issues are about what is done with that knowledge. And let us look to the individual and to our broader values as we seek to understand the fortunately rare cases of scientific dishonesty. It is simplistic, and contrary to the evidence, to attribute the problem to the corrupting influence of industry and the contrasting purity of the academic environment.I am not sure what message Laughlin sends his students. Is it that doing basic science in an industrial setting is not possible? Is it that, in the creation of knowledge, researchers should avoid having knowledge become useful property out of fear that they might turn into “willing deceivers”? I hope his students will see a more realistic and balanced picture of the opportunities in the world to which they have committed their careers.© 2003 American Institute of Physics.