"In what conditions are scientists most creative? Why are some laboratories so much more successful than others? Sociologists of science may debate the issue, but the leaders of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute believe the answers are clear enough to justify a scientific experiment costing half a billion dollars. On a site here overlooking the Potomac, about 30 miles northwest of Washington, they are building a laboratory [Janelia Farm Research Campus] designed to foster a culture of scientific creativity. Its operations are to be modeled after two research centers with outstanding records of productivity, Bell Labs and the Laboratory of Molecular Biology run by Medical Research Council of Britain. These two labs succeeded for the same set of reasons, in the view of Dr. Gerald M. Rubin, vice president of the Hughes institute. Their scientists worked in small groups, under leaders who did hands-on research. They received ample financial and technical support, with no need to apply for grants or other distractions. Few researchers had tenure, so there was a high turnover. And the only directive was that people should work on an interesting problem, however long it might take. That formula may sound like the scientific ideal, but it is seldom followed, even in universities. Financing agencies demand safe research and predictable results. Young scientists spend very few years working with their own hands before becoming administrators... Biomedical research in the United States is generally regarded as a highly successful enterprise. Yet the rationale of Janelia Farm carries a strong implied criticism because almost every aspect of its operation - long-term goals, no pressure to generate practical results, no grant writing, no administration, hands-on research, interaction across disciplines - is designed to be the opposite of those in the established system." (The New York Times)