Scientific feasibility

I hate dealing with manufacturing and sacrificing innovation for quick development.  This is one of the biggest trade-offs I've had to deal with in industry.  Every time this comes up I think more and more about how much I hate it.  And my group doesn't deal with manufacturing that much.  We develop crazy medical devices and do crazy studies then other groups worry about how to take our devices to the next level.  But because I work for a company that has to make profit, I inevitably have to make sure the devices are grounded in reality.

This came up recently.  I came up with a crazy technology that I feel could really revolutionize the field, but it will take a year of scientific evaluation followed by a year of development.  This is much longer than our typical development cycles in my team.  And no one hear is willing to invest in the kind of core science I need to do.  Higher-ups are making me use rudimentary technology with a misunderstanding of the biology to get this done quickly.  I understand we need to make money.  And the faster we get things done the faster we'll get these devices in patients and make said money.  The problem is that for years I've been told, "That's a great idea.  Let's save that for the next generation."  But we never do.  Leadership just keeps pushing it through.  And we end up doing the most basic of feasibility studies on a device that could have been much better.  We need the best possible core knowledge and technologies if we're going to solve healthcare's most difficult problems.  Even if it takes an extra year.

This is one of the key differences in academia I can't wait to get involved with again.  I am really looking forward to doing core science, then creating the best technology possible regardless of how far off it is.  What's weird in all of this is that leadership is excited about giving my new lab money to pursue these core science and far-off technology ideas.  They just don't like funding their own labs to do this stuff.  I guarantee my current group would do this science and development much faster than my academic group will.  And probably for cheaper.  So why can't industry do more on the science and feasibility side.  Talking to lots of friends (I'm popular!!!!) in the field, they all have jobs that involve having to design devices for manufacturablility and quick turnarounds.  They don't mind, but whenever they hear about my group they're always amazed at the level of science and R&D we do...taking designs to feasibility then letting other groups handle the details.  This apparently is rare in most of the industry.  In most groups, if you designed it, you will inevitably take it to the next level.  I would hate to do this, especially since I want to regress even further,  working on tons of core science and devices that are ugly and take forever to design, but they do the job in new ways.  Seriously, I can't effectively describe how excited I am about getting more back to (translational) basics.  And every time I deal with people outside of my groups it makes me want to start my new position even more.