I was reading a Wall Street Journal article (Saturday) discussing creativity and the solo inventor.  While the article was interesting, many of the conclusions Jonah Lehrer were trying to impart were wrong (in my opinion).  In a nutshell, his conclusions:

1. Because we can’t recall the names of solo inventors, they must have no impact on the world;
2. Scientific innovation is now being effected by older scientists (quoting Dr. Jones’ study that determined the peak age for discovery is nearing 40); and,
3. Most articles (scientific ones) now have multiple authors (and back when Einstein was publishing, articles were primarily single authorship).

Let’s deal with the last “conclusion” first.  I don’t know how many of you have had the opportunity to study for a scientific or engineering PhD- but the system is pretty straightforward.  The professor (who is the thesis advisor) routinely shares in the authorship  of papers that describe the research, for which he obtained sponsorship.  That is not as typical when the PhD effort is in the humanities (which often don’t provide the candidate free tuition, fees, and stipends).  So, that really means that the reason why there are multiple authors on scientific papers starts with the system.   Couple that with the fact that most technological efforts can be (and are) split into multiple theses (thereby providing funds to several different individuals obtaining PhD’s, as well as fund the professor (at least one)), a funded project will be able to foster  multiple papers with multiple authors.  The system is not known as “publish or perish” for naught.

Moreover, you have folks like my team.  We decided years ago (no, I won’t say how many decades) that we would run our research firm like a university- but with a profit and product motive.  That meant that we had team members equivalent to PhD researchers, as well as post-docs.  Each individual had vital research components  to design and deduce.  We shared any resultant authorship with each of them.  They were critical members of our team.   One of our founders may have had the “idea” that made the product or process unique, profitable, and proprietary- but our team members help us prove our concepts.

Which brings us to the first statement above- solo inventors.  I have been one (and occasionally still am).  My partner has been one (and occasionally still is). (I could name many more that I personally know and respect- Al Collins, Bob Langer…)  But, we elected to work together to try to do things even better and smarter.  Because in today’s world, it takes money to bring a product to market.  And, money does not like backing solo anything.

We tried decades ago to get people to hire us to help them solve their problems.  They were seemingly unimpressed with our credentials and capabilities, until we “repositioned” ourselves in a unique and creative fashion- and made our way.  (But, that’s not the issue today.)  Neither does the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)  does not like to consider the products developed by lone inventors.  Nevertheless,  the real fact is that corporations don’t develop products- their people do.

Publishing research that folks win accolades like the Nobel Prize when they are older does not mean that’s when their seminal ideas arose.  These folks are being recognized for scientific breakthroughs done decades earlier.  Watson won the Nobel Prize for his DNA research performed before attaining age 25.  Richard Heck won the 2010 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (well in his 70’s) for work he did before he was age 30.  The issue really is when seminal work is done- not when the world recognizes their contributions.

So, if you have children- make sure they know we still need their creativity.  Now- not later.  They may not get famous until later- or never.  But, they will know they made the world a better place.  And, by the way, what’s stopping you?

Share this: