Recent cutbacks in the scale and scope of research being conducted in the laboratories of companies that developed some of today's most commercially valuable technologies -- at companies such as Lucent Technologies (Bell Laboratories), IBM, Xerox, Alcoa and General Electric -- have raised concerns about whether the short-term financial performance pressures imposed on today's managers might compromise the longer-term growth potential in our economy. This paper proposes a model of the factors that affect a company's ability to capture the returns from its investments in research, grounded in several case studies. It suggests that under conditions of technological modularity, technologies developed in one company's research laboratories are very likely to "leak" into the open market to the benefit of many firms; whereas under conditions of technological integrality, firms that conduct research are much more able to capture the returns from their investments in creating new technology. Those industries in which companies are continuing to invest aggressively in research, such as pharmaceuticals and chemicals, tend to be based upon integral technologies, whereas products in industries where research is being scaled back, such as electronics and telecommunications, have become technologically modular. This paper asserts that we might expect technology in most industries to swing back and forth between integrality and modularity. This means that firms' abilities to profit from technological or scientific research are likely also to wax and wane.