The narrative usually goes something like this: a naïve scientist invents a clever piece of technology designed to improve the quality of life in the developing world, only to be shocked and horrified when it is not wholly embraced by the people it was designed to help. Of course, such characterizations could not be further from the truth. Many scientists, especially those working on technologies for the developing world, take on challenges precisely because of their desire to address human-level complexity. The fact that difficulties arise on occasion comes as neither a surprise nor a disappointment to them. It’s just part of the job.

Recently, Chancellor Robert Birgeneau announced that he will be stepping down as UC Berkeley chancellor and returning to the lab as a physics and materials science professor. In his announcement letter to the campus, he wrote that he hopes to “have one more truly significant physics/materials science experiment still to come in my academic career.” But after his extended hiatus from research, does Birgeneau have what it takes to return to the cutting edge of these two fast-moving fields? To find out, I spent some time poring through his C.V. and research homepage for a closer look at the caliber of researcher he was before becoming an administrator.

Birgeneau’s research career spanned four decades, starting with his graduate studies at Yale in the mid-1960’s and lasting until he become president of the University of Toronto in 2000. He published his first academic paper in 1964 in Physical Review while he was a summer intern at Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories in Ontario, Canada. According to the paper’s abstract, he used quantum theoretical calculations and inelastic neutron scattering measurements to characterize the thermodynamic properties of nickel and compared them to those of copper. Titled “Normal modes of vibration in nickel”, the paper has been cited an impressive 167 times – not bad for a first-time author.

Those of you who are well-versed in the history of science and technology have probably heard of Bell Labs, especially if you’re an electrical engineering student like me. For most of the 20^th century, Bell Labs was firmly positioned at the cutting edge of technological innovation — so much so that one might even say that it was the cutting edge. You don’t have to take my word for it; just scan through a list of its 10 most important innovations. Recognize any of them?

I bring this up because last weekend, the New York Times ran a fascinating article about the legendary institution. The author, Jon Gertner, argues that Bell Labs embodied an organizational model for innovation that is different and in some ways better than today’s model (Bell Labs is no longer active in the basic sciences). Whereas today’s “innovative” companies are set up to churn out incrementally differentiated consumer products faster than their competitors (Gertner is pointing at you, app developers), Bell Labs was set up to achieve the types of huge technological leaps that required years or decades of concentrated efforts by the world’s top scientists. Much of what we perceive as modern technological progress really stems from these great advances.