past. But the difference is that someone has taken a specific look at those goals and has communicated with business units to ensure that they can make use of it and can create value from it.
So yes, there is still open-ended research at Bell Labs. No, not everybody can do it, but a percentage of individuals, 5 percent of us, still have the freedom and the focus and the flexibility to pursue hunches, whatever those hunches are. Those who manage those individuals do not attenuate the ability of those scientists to pursue hunches and to pursue interests. I hope I've clarified the situation at Bell Labs.
Thomas A. Manuel, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.: We're glad that the light is still burning brightly in Murray Hill, but to respond to Professor Warner on a broader perspective, and based on work done in the IRI, the fact is that across industry, the horizons have been drawn in. There's less frontier research being done now than there was some years ago. I think it's foolish for society to rely on industry to do the preponderance of that type of research. It never did and it never will, and in fact, it shouldn't. That is the province of academia and perhaps the government, certainly through funding, and in some mission-oriented cases through the national laboratories.
This concerns people in industry by and large. If you look at the sentiments expressed by the IRI or other groups of industrial people, they overwhelmingly wish academia would stay out of product development and stay out of trying to make money and companies out of inventions on campus, and instead keep on refilling the pool of fundamental knowledge. This is a message that we have to keep discussing. This opens opportunities for partnership, of course, since industry needs the new knowledge and can't do it, and academia can do it but needs funding.
Joseph M. Jasinski: Some of my remarks were also involved in the last question, so let me just clarify one thing. In the case of high-temperature superconductivity, the United States did very much the same thing. Within a year or two of the discovery, a national task force was commissioned. So there was a concerted attempt to make use of this wonderful new discovery.
Are we likely to make similar discoveries in the future? First of all, IBM Research and Bell Laboratories have a long history of being laboratories at the forefront, and we both hope that we still are. We both are certainly trying to be. But, times change. In the case of Bell Labs, there was the divestiture of AT&T, the telephone company. In the case of IBM, there was the financial crisis in 1992 and a big change in our industry, which forced us to change the way we look at things.
Would I like to go back to the "good old days"? I'm not sure I would, now that I've seen what my future looks like. But at the time, I sure was hanging on to everything I had, and so were most of my colleagues. We thought that if we could just hold on hard enough and long enough, we would get back to the good old days. This is, of course, a classic symptom associated with the psychology of change—a very common first reaction to catastrophic change. From the comments I've heard today from academia and the government sector, I believe this reaction is starting to take hold here today.
Janet G. Osteryoung, National Science Foundation: I would like to just repeat something that Dr. Mitchell said during his talk that I thought was profound: that research that is valued has been assessed. I think that is a take-home message, particularly for the people in the academic sector, because that is the sector with the most resistance to measuring the value of research by any means. I think that's a comforting outcome to look forward to, if you go through the agony of trying to do this.
Francis A. Via, Akzo-Nobel Chemicals, Inc.: Two general comments on the concerns of implementing metrics at every level of research activities for both our academic and our industrial colleagues. Our experience and those of leaders in our industry have demonstrated genuine challenges with establishing