We have completed maintenance on DiscoverMagazine.com and action may be required on your account. Learn More

Crazy or Brilliant?


Science is a risky business, argue leading 
researchers in a special DISCOVER roundtable. 
You have to gamble big to win big.

By Jordan Hollender
Nov 28, 2012 6:00 AMNov 12, 2019 5:17 AM
corey.jpg

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news
 

In 1919, Robert Goddard, a forward-thinking physicist and inventor from Massachusetts, wrote that a rocket powered by liquid fuel could escape Earth’s gravity and land on the moon. “A severe strain on credulity,” scoffed The New York Times, a half century before Apollo 11 cemented Goddard’s reputation as the rocket man whose vision blasted into reality. His story was the inspiration for the panel discussion “Crazy or Brilliant: Betting on High-Risk, High-Reward Science,” sponsored by DISCOVER and the Research Corporation for Science Advancement in collaboration with the New York Academy of Sciences. Last May, physicists Brian Greene and Michal Lipson, venture capitalist Shelley Harrison, journalist Jon Gertner, and DISCOVER editor in chief Corey S. Powell gathered in front of an audience in the academy’s glassy New York offices for a spirited discussion about string theory and supermarket scanners, cranks and geniuses, and how in science, as Bob Dylan once sang, there’s no success like failure.

The Dream Lab


Corey Powell: A half century ago, AT&T was the biggest company in the world, and its R&D arm, Bell Labs, was the archetypal incubator for hatching crazy ideas into brilliant technology. Transistors, satellite communications, and the programming language C were born there. Jon, you’ve studied Bell Labs in detail. What made it so special?

Jon Gertner: There were a lot of different ingredients. Being attached to the world’s largest corporation gave Bell Labs a stream of money and the ability to think long-term in a way that failure was acceptable. They could look 10 years in advance without the problem of making quarterly or year-end results. They could tolerate a certain amount of failure that a business-side executive could not. They also had a keen sense of how disciplines could interact and develop new ideas. They were very careful and intent on combining people in new and different ways. They combined loners and extroverts, people with different personalities, as well as applied and fundamental scientists, and experimentalists and theorists.

Powell: Shelley, you actually worked at Bell Labs during its heyday in the 1960s. What came out of your time there?

0 free articles left
Want More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/month

Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

0 free articlesSubscribe
Discover Magazine Logo
Want more?

Keep reading for as low as $1.99!

Subscribe

Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

Stay Curious

Sign up for our weekly newsletter and unlock one more article for free.

 

View our Privacy Policy


Want more?
Keep reading for as low as $1.99!


Log In or Register

Already a subscriber?
Find my Subscription

More From Discover
Recommendations From Our Store
Shop Now
Stay Curious
Join
Our List

Sign up for our weekly science updates.

 
Subscribe
To The Magazine

Save up to 40% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

Copyright © 2024 Kalmbach Media Co.