专家警告：基础研究断层将威胁科技创新

在日前一场庆祝以太网络(Ethernet)技术四十周年的大会上，与会专家们指出，由于支持基础研究的赞助有限以及大企业的研发实验室逐渐没落，科技产业的创新管道可能出现断层。 他们感叹曾经发明晶体管的AT＆T贝尔实验室(Bell Labs)淡出基础研究舞台，以及催生以太网络的 Xerox PARC (帕罗奥多研究中心)持续衰退。而当今许多大型的科技公司(如苹果公司)也几乎不再从事基础研究了。

PARC前负责人Bill Spencer

早期参与以太网络计划的Mayfield Fund管理总监Yogen Dalal表示：“当我在Xerox时，人们不必担心筹措几百万美元的VC资金，我们还能自由地支配运用以实现研发突破。而今你仍必须有所突破，但谁来提供赞助资金呢？” PARC前负责人Bill Spencer说：“这件事最值得关注之处在于我们失去了最重要的大型产业研究──如果没有贝尔实验室不会有晶体管的发明。美国仍然有着全世界最好的大学教育体系，同时也是推动新新物商用化上市的最佳位置，但在二者中间却出现了断层。”

PARC前负责人Bill Spencer

JLabs LLC公司首席执行官Judy Estrin认为，“当今的实验室并未发挥应有的功能，他们多半只着重于应用研究，而忽略了基础研究。”她补充说，“他们进行研发并试图在PARC规模上建立可验证概念，因而成立像Bridge或3Com等新创公司，就能够为其争取到创投资金。一些基础研究于是落到了大学的研究计划，或者是一些专注于短线利益的大型企业上。” Estrin 认为，Google与微软(Microsogt)是目前能够负担得起一座研究机构的公司，然而都缺乏贝尔实验室和前IBM Research的广阔视野，因而形成了当今很大的差距。 Estrin指出，“苹果虽取得了令人难以置信的创新以及偶尔进行应用研究，但我认为他们并不会在基础研究方面进行投资，因为那并不是他们努力的领域。”Estrin强调，只有大企业的实验室培训学者如何成为创新者。 “研究人员们都希望争取费，”她说，“如今的研究已经和计算机产业刚开始时不一样了，现在必须将计算机技术应用于脑部疾病或健身管理，因此筹措资金也变得更复杂，因为出资者不再把钱投入业经定义的产品上了。” 微软研究院首席研究员贝尔(Gordon Bell)表示，“我并不认为当今的一切有如此地不同，我看到还有很多不错的想法，而且也有许多人取得比以前更的联邦资金。” 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 编译：Susan Hong 参考英文原文：Research gap threatens innovation, experts warn，by Rick Merritt

相关阅读：
• 电子科技大学第二届“R&S杯”科技创新基金项目成功落幕
• 欧洲的科技创新力已被中美甩出几条街
• 中国英特尔物联技术研究院成立，两亿投资推物联网技术研究niuesmc

{pagination} Research gap threatens innovation, experts warn Rick Merritt MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. – The innovation pipeline could run dry from a lack of federal funding in basic research and the decline of big corporate R&D labs, said a panel of experts at an event celebrating the 40th anniversary of Ethernet. They lamented the loss of AT&T Bell Labs that gave birth to the transistor and the decline of Xerox PARC, the birthplace of Ethernet. By contrast many of today’s largest tech companies, such as Apple—accused by Congress this week for failing to pay taxes on billions in revenue—conduct virtually no basic research, they said. “When I was at Xerox people were not preoccupied with raising millions in VC funds-- we had free reign to make breakthroughs come true,” said Yogen Dalal, a managing director at the Mayfield Fund who wrote a seminal paper on Ethernet in its early days. “You have to have breakthroughs, but today who will fund them,” he asked. “The thing that concerns me the most is we have lost the lead in big industrial research—we would never have had the transistor without Bell Labs,” said Bill Spencer, former head of PARC and Sematech. “The U.S. still has the best university system in world, and it’s still the best place to bring new things to market, but the middle missing,” he said. Bill Spencer led PARC in the early days of Ethernet. “We’re missing the role the labs played which was less basic research than a translation of applied research,” said Judy Estrin, a serial entrepreneur in communications and chief executive of JLabs LLC (Menlo Park, Calif.). “They took research and invention and tried it at scale—PARC created proofs of concepts so startups called Bridge or 3Com could make them work with a small amount of funding,” Estrin said. “We are missing this translational piece, so it’s falling on universities to handle it or large corporations that tend to focus only on the short term bottom line,” she added. Researchers "starving for money" Google and Microsoft “are the two companies that can afford to have a research arm” today, Estrin said. But both lack the broad sweep of Bell Labs and the former IBM Research “so there’s a big gap today,” she added. “Apple is unbelievably innovative and occasional does applied research, but I don’t think they ever believed in investing in basic research--that’s not judgmental, they just don’t play that role there,” Estrin said. The big corporate labs trained academics in how to be innovators, Estrin said. She also noted her experience as member of an advisory board for Bio-X, an interdisciplinary research program at Stanford. “Every one of those researchers is starving for money,” she said. “Research doesn’t fit into the clean boxes it did at the beginning of the computer industry because now its applying computer technology to brain diseases or managing wellness, so the funding has become more complex because the funders can no longer fund in [well-defined] boxes,” she said. Industry veteran Gordon Bell took issue with the panelists later in the day. “I don’t see things as all that different today,” said Bell, now a principal researcher at Microsoft Research. “I think there are a lot of great ideas out there, and more people than ever at the federal funding trough,” he said.