Since Vannevar Bush issued his famous report, Science the Endless Frontier, in 1945, there have been endless debates about the value of investments in basic science research by government and corporations. Robert Solow's Nobel Prize work demonstrated the link between aggregated research investments and economic growth. Our new research project is focused at a much finer granularity, at the level of the science lab or research group. Through a series of case studies we examine the "workings of the lab." What factors contribute to a lab's success and productivity? Our first four studies investigate the life of academic research labs, which are believed by peers to be "hyper-productive." We offer some preliminary measures of impact and productivity, although there is not a universal set in the community.
The discussion will center on how research projects are selected, who does the research, how the intellectual output is crafted (e.g., the drafting of papers), and how this process leads to ideas that influence the scientific community and in some cases leads to commercial products. Preliminary analyses suggest there are common patterns across the labs. Although we believe there are important differences between these hyper-productive labs and traditional academic science labs, as well as differences with development or engineering labs, we suggest there are lessons to be learned when allocating resources for science research. Direct economic connections are difficult due to the general observation of a 10-20 year lag between the first research findings and significant commercial activity.
If these science labs do have outstanding impact and productivity, can we learn from their organization, structure, and processes?