This is a lightly edited version of a message sent via email on October 24, 2025, to the opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times. It is part of a book-length project, in search of a publisher, on a surprisingly quixotic effort by kibitzing physicist James Lyons Walsh to get science and math errors and omissions in media corrected. (email address for James)
Hello Philip Gray,
I'm writing to alert you to a factual error in a recent Voices essay. I'm a physicist who has spent the past five years writing essays, letters, and memoirs to promote the survival of our civilization. This morning, in my local paper, I read Prof. Julia R. Greer's essay that you published October 5 under the headline "Want the Next Breakthrough? Don't starve the science that makes it possible." (Contributor: Want the next breakthrough? Don’t starve the science that makes it possible - Los Angeles Times) While it's astounding to me that a Caltech professor of materials science and member of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA could make a serious mistake on the history of the transistor in a formal essay, here's part of what I wrote to the editors of the Albany Times Union earlier today:
"Prof. Julia R. Greer calls the invention of the transistor a 'curiosity-driven experiment.' Later, she writes, 'Yet at the time, this or any kind of payoff was unimaginable.' The emphasis is mine. Lower down, she refers to 'work driven by curiosity rather than a business plan.'
"Isn’t it incredible that Bell Labs was doing research for which 'any kind of payoff was unimaginable'? It is, in fact, incredible, being false, at least in this case. Here are quotations from the Nobel lectures of Bardeen and Shockley, two of the Bell Labs scientists held to have been chiefly responsible for the invention of the transistor.
“'Aside from intrinsic scientific interest, an important reason for choosing semiconductors as a promising field in which to work, was the many and increasing applications in electronic devices, which, in 1945, included diodes, varistors and thermistors. There had long been the hope of making a triode, or an amplifying device with a semiconductor.' –John Bardeen - Nobel Lecture
“'The objective of producing useful devices has strongly influenced the choice of the research projects with which I have been associated. It is frequently said that having a more-or-less specific practical goal in mind will degrade the quality of research. I do not believe that this is necessarily the case and to make my point in this lecture I have chosen my examples of the new physics of semiconductors from research projects which were very definitely motivated by practical considerations.' That is the opening paragraph of William Shockley’s Nobel lecture. He also said, 'Insofar as my contribution to transistor electronics has hastened the day of a fully electronic telephone exchange, it was strongly stimulated by the experiences given me during my early years at the Laboratories.' William Shockley - Nobel Lecture
"Prof. Greer has published not only false characterizations but also a blatantly false statement, that 'any kind of payoff was unimaginable' at the time the transistor was invented. Was Prof. Greer lying, ignorant, or simply thinking as best she can through the constant hum of satisfying her material needs and those of any dependents she might have while causing her thoughts to resonate with those in the minds nearest hers?"
The last sentence is my honest attempt as a complex systems scientist to understand how Prof. Greer could be so far afield on the history while also being an honest, competent, distinguished scientist. As a scientist, I know that not all of us are honest or competent, but I'm happy to assume that Prof. Greer is both.
Incidentally, here's my recent essay on a similar topic, published in the Times Union: Commentary: That smartphone is centuries in the making. Maybe you'll want to reprint it.
Thank you for your time.
Best wishes,
James
As of June 10, 2026, the essay in the Los Angeles Times seems not to have been corrected. No response was ever received to the email.