Ghassib (2010) presents a provocative view of science as industry. He ties science specifically to a "productivist" industrial model and to knowledge production. If judged based on what is explicit in this article, his theory is useful and logical. There are, however, several concerns as well. Some of these are implied by the title of his article, which is "Where does creativity fit into a productivistic industrial model of knowledge production?" This implies a connection between creativity and knowledge, and between creativity and productivity for that matter, and both are in fact complicated relationships. Additionally, there are a number of assumptions in Ghassib's (2010) article, and several of these can be questioned. The primary objectives of the present Commentary are to examine these complex relationships and to identify and evaluate those assumptions. Before identifying Ghassib's (2010) assumptions, something should be said about less dubious sections of his work. His history is, I believe, the best part of his article. Ghassib (2010) does a wonderful job presenting an overview of the history and evolution of the scientific method. This history is not slanted towards Western culture, or at least not nearly as much as many of them are, and Ghassib (2010) identifies several critical eras, or what he calls pockets in history. There was, for example, the Hellenian pocket which of course represented the outstanding efforts of Ancient Greece, and in particular astronomy and geometry. The idea of pockets may assist theories of creativity that look to the effects of Zeitgeist on creative efforts (Simonton, 1999).