Anecdotes about scientists leaving universities for industry jobs used to warrant curiosity — or worse, whispers of 'sell-out' from envious colleagues. But the exodus has become so commonplace that it no longer draws attention, beyond speculation over money. Tales about scientists departing industry for academia are more exotic. So when the moves of two prominent scientists from large corporations to university positions come to light more or less at the same time, one must resist the temptation to label this reverse migration a trend. Instead, it may be more prudent to examine the conditions that prompted those moves, and ask if they are aberrations or harbingers of things to come.

Mathematician Andrew Odlyzko and nanotech pioneer Jim Gimzewski both enjoyed the resources of industry for a combined 40-plus years — Odlyzko leading AT&T's mathematics and cryptography department (see Movers, Naturejobs 17 May 2001) and Gimzewski manipulating atoms at IBM's famed Zurich Research Centre (see Movers, this issue). But both eventually found that their interests were broader than their companies' relatively open playing fields could contain. Moving to universities means more control over intellectual property, a chance to interact with hundreds of postdocs and graduate students, and the opportunity to form and dissolve collaborations with colleagues in both sectors.

Still, even with that freedom, the decision was not easy for either scientist. The question is, will more scientists be asked to make it? Both Odlyzko and Gimzewski will run large, well-funded, multidisciplinary centres. Although there are relatively few of these centres, their numbers are growing and it is not unreasonable to speculate that as more are opened, academic scientists will no longer find it curious that their industrial colleagues are joining them.