do we need a forum for research philosophy?

Do We Need a Forum for Research Philosophy?Author(s): Arthur BronwellSource: SIAM Review, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Jul., 1961), pp. 256-259Published by: Society for Industrial and Applied MathematicsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2027887 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 23:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to SIAM Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.92 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:39:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=siam

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2027887?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


SIAM REVIEW Vol. 3, No. 3, July, 1961

DO WE NEED A FORUM FOR RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY?'

ARTHUR BRONWELL2

IN THE OCTOBER 1960 ISSUE of the SIAM Review, Dr. R. F. Drenick has presented an analysis of a conference on "Research Goals" held at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, which he attended and contributed to significantly in its discussions. I find myself in agreement, in part, with Dr. Drenick's views, but because this subject is of vital consequence in our nation's technological development, I believe that it might be profitable to illuminate the subject in directions other than those covered in Dr. Drenick's article. May I therefore submit the following presentation?

The part which the scientific and engineering societies play in influencing the direction and accomplishment of research is currently a subject of very con- siderable discussion at top levels in these societies. It seems quite evident that the societies provide a necessary forum for the exchange of ideas and the dis- semination of knowledge. Through their publications, they convey to the world at large descriptions of technical advances in knowledge.

However, there are several problems which seem to be preeminent in the current discussions. One is that a well-established and mature professional society tends to establish focal centers which, however broad, still preclude en- compassing new developments which may grow to eclipse the old ones in vitality, in the advancement of new knowledge, and ultimately, in their contribution to mankind's progress. This is not pure fiction. It is self-evident from the rate at which new splinter societies have been forming in the past two decades, including SIAM. My own professional field has been that of electronics, which splintered out of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in order to establish a new burst of freedom which it could not have acquired within the structure of the orthodox society. The Institute of Radio Engineers has expanded enormously under wise and progressive management, picking up each new field dealing with advanced phases of electronics, solid state physics, biophysics, etc. as they came along and establishing a reasonably flexible structure into which these new mavericks could develop their own momentum. Again and again new societies have splintered off from the older societies because they have felt the con- straining influences of claustrophobia. The American Nuclear Society, the American Rocket Society, the Institute of Aeronautical Sciences, and innumer- able others attest to this process of cellular division which is an organic process in the growth of knowledge.

The problem which faces the older professional societies, or every society for that matter, is the question of how they can achieve the flexibility to embrace new fields of knowledge as they emerge and give fullest impetus to their development. This is no simple problem. It is a matter of grave concern to many of the

I Received by the editors January 11, 1961. 2President, Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

256



DO WE NEED A FORUM FOR RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY? 257

older professional societies. If ever there was a lesson to learn from the past, it is that again and again new fields of scientific inquiry have burst forth out of relative obscurity to become dominant fields of technological development within a comparatively short period of time. We have not reached the end of this road. In fact, scientists all agree that the potentialities of opening up new fields are vastly greater today than ever before.

The conference on "Research Goals" was held at Woiester Polytechnic Institute in December 1959, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and held in cooperation with fifteen of the leading scientific and engineering societies. The conference dealt specifically with the question:

"How can young research scientists and engineers be brought more stimu- latively, imaginatively, and creatively into contact with the frontiers of science and technology in such a way as to accelerate significant discoveries, both in the advancement of science and in the translation of science into new technologies?" The conference urged that the engineering societies give serious consideration

to enlarging their scope of responsibilities so as to penetrate more deeply into the sciences. It pointed out that engineering more and more is becoming inter- disciplinary in character. The slow diffusion of science into engineering results, in part, from the difficulties of achieving effective cross-fertilization between different disciplines, which are not now adequately covered by the present engineering societies. It stated that the influence of the engineering societies in the pioneering of a new field of research can be great, but it is not enough for a professional society merely to adjust long after the pioneering work has been d6ne. The professional society must provide an environment of fullest encouragement for papers, discussions, and publications in the scientific areas beyond those of "proven" utility value, for in the "unproven" areas there may well reside promising possibilities that will profoundly influence the future of technology.

The report also recommended that the scientific and engineering societies explore more effective ways of bringing talented youth into stimulative personal association with outstanding research scientists of our times. It suggested that philosophical explorations of the future by leading scientists could give young people much larger visions of what lies ahead. A great teacher can have a pro- found influence in passing on to young people philosophical ideas and inspira- tions which will start some of them on the road to great adventure. This is the distinguishing quality of a great teacher. Generally speaking, this association of fertile, imaginative minds has been the genesis of much of our progress in the evolution of ideas. But the professional societies, in their traditional role of permitting reports only on research completed and largely ruling out philosophical, speculative explorations of the future, even by the most competent scientists, perhaps are failing to provide the most vital stimulus that could cap- tivate the minds of talented young people. The inspiration of occasionally hearing leading scientists discuss the promising possibilities of the future as they see it could enlarge the visions of young people and lift some of them out



258 ARTHUR BRONWELL

of the "hole-plugging" research level into a level of enthusiasm and achievement that could lead into the opening up of larger domains of new knowledge.

The principles set forth in the Report were endorsed by vote of the Council of American Institute of Chemical Engineers, with a directive to the Program Committee to endeavor to develop programs embodying these concepts. Also the Engineers' Joint Council has appointed, in part as an outcome of the research conference, a Research Committee to assess the future of research effort in the nation and to endeavor to identify areas where greater research effort might yield promising possibilities for the future of technology. This possibility of the professional societies undertaking philosophical sessions looking to the future, has been the subject of widespread discussion at top levels in many of the professional societies.

I recall, in my student days, reading an article by Professor Karapetoff in which he set forth a number of prophecies regarding the future of electrical engineering. Among his predictions, most of which have come true, he prophesied that electromagnetic field phenomenon and electromagnetic waves would become one of the most important areas of technology. To me, this was utterly preposterous. Yet within 15 years I found myself writing a textbook based upon Maxwell's equations, electromagnetic waves and all the things that Karapetoff said would be important.

In 1908 a senior student at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Robert Goddard, wrote that someday the power from the atom would propel rockets to the moon. He devoted his whole life to the fulfillment of this prophecy and single-handedly pioneered rocket research long before others came into the field. Yet, Dr. God- dard was never invited to present his findings or his views of the future before any of the leading scientific or engineering societies-until long after the military importance of his discoveries were clearly established. Today, if one wants speculative, philosophical discussions of what is yet to come, he must go to Life or Fortune magazine, for he will not find these discussed in the professional society meetings or published in their journals. Is there something wrong? Are we living too much in the present and not giving youth the projections into the future?

As an adviser to a division of the National Science Foundation, who has witnessed the spectrum of proposals submitted to that organization for research grants, it has been my observation that most of these cluster around well- populated fields in which there is a comfortable community of interest. Seldom does one find the real pioneer who is trying to break new ground. This clustering of research effort is necessary, of course, to fill out voids in the structures of knowledge. But there is also need for the individual who will break clear of the well established fields in an endeavor to pioneer new realms of knowledge. In this process the stimulative and imaginative projections of a great teacher or a great scientist, showing the individual the possibilities out ahead, can be of enormous consequence.

Throughout history we have had clear evidence that genius breeds genius. The case of a Socrates producing a Plato and a Plato producing an Aristotle is



DO WE NEED A FORUM FOR RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY? 259

the way in which progress in great ideas has evolved. To say that this kind of philosophical exploration of new knowledge should not be a part of our professional society activities, in my estimation is to deny youth the greatest stimula- tion which they could achieve from the great minds of our times. There is, I believe, no validity in saying that because a great scientist may accidentally lead youth down the wrong path, that this kind of philosophical speculation is hazardous. If this argument had gained currency in Ancient Greece, we would have no western civilization today.

In all sincerity, I cannot concur with the view that philosophical, speculative projections into the future have no place in our colleges and universities or in our professional societies. A new and rapidly emerging focal center of research, by its very nature, is full of uncertainties. Philosophical speculations about the directions which future developments will take are essential if progress is to be made, and it is out of these discussions that future explorations will very largely develop. The only question which remains is whether or not the professional societies are fulfilling their highest purpose in this respect. Frankly, I believe that they are not. In several very rare instances, I have heard leading scientists explore the future at professional society meetings. These sessions I have found to be the most stimulative, provocative and challenging meetings that I have attended. I can well imagine how such meetings could profoundly influence the thinking of young people-people who are groping around in the dark earnestly trying to find something different and important and promising to work on but who, lacking this vision, will in all probability fall by weight of gravity into the conventional fields of research where they will find some holes to plug.

There is no measure of the success of this kind of endeavor. One cannot expect to see great scientific discoveries emerge directly out of meetings in which leading scientists explore the future. One never knows when he has scored a "hit." But I believe that there is an awakening to the need in the professional societies for a true forum for research philosophy, a forum to which leading mathema- ticians, scientists, and engineers will be invited to explore beyond the traditional boundaries into the future as they see it. Furthermore, I believe that this will profoundly influence the visions, the ambitions, and the capabilities of youth to explore on into new domains of knowledge.



do we need a forum for research philosophy?

Documents