S C I E N C E N E W S1 0 6 A U G U S T 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 V O L . 1 6 4

STEP

HEN

WO

LFR

AM

LLC

IN SEARCH OF A SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION

Controversial genius Stephen Wolfram presses onward BY PETER WEISS

Plenty of people claim to have theories that willrevolutionize science. What’s rare is for otherscientists to take one of these schemes seriously.Yet that’s what’s happened since May 2002 whentheoretical physicist Stephen Wolfram self-pub-

lished a book in which he alleged to have found a newway to address the most difficult problems of science.Tellingly, he named this treatise A New Kind of Science.The book, which Wolfram sent to hundreds of journalists and influential scientists, sparked a firestorm of criti-cism. Detractors charged that the author was peddling specula-tions as discoveries, asserting that decades-old research was new,and pirating the research of oth-ers without giving due credit.Many commentators concludedthat the author’s promise of a rev-olutionary upheaval in sciencewas grandiose and unbelievable,even as they allowed that the bookcontained some incremental sci-entific discoveries, as well asintriguing ideas.

Fast-forward to this summer:Wolfram’s book is in its fifth50,000-copy printing, despitebeing a $45, 1,200-page, techni-cally dense hardback. Dozens ofscientific papers have cited thebook. Wolfram has hosted thefirst international conference onhis work.

What’s going on? Has the mandiscovered a secret that will causescience textbooks to be rewrittenor merely found a formula formass-marketing science—orsomething in between? ScienceNews takes a look at Wolfram’senterprise 15 months after thebook’s debut.

EQUATION EVASION At theheart of Wolfram’s work is the observation that extremely sim-ple computer programs can generate patterns of extraordinarycomplexity. Among such programs are a type known as cellu-lar automata, which scientists have studied for 50 years (SN:7/3/99, p. 8).

To understand what a cellular automaton is, consider a sheet ofgraph paper on which a pattern can be marked by darkeningselected boxes. The top row may have one or more boxes black-ened. A simple cellular automaton draws a pattern by beginningwith the second row and working its way down the page.

As it considers each box in a row, the automaton observes thebox above and those on either side of that higher box. Then, on thebasis of a specific rule that depends on which, if any, of those threeboxes are dark, the automaton blackens its current box or leavesit blank—and moves on.

Most simple cellular automata generate boring, repetitive pat-terns. However, one day more than 20 years ago, Wolfram wasobserving the behavior of a cellular automaton known as Rule 30when the program created an unpredictable pattern of stunningcomplexity on a computer printout. That event began a journey ofdiscovery, Wolfram says, that ultimately led him to realize that ele-mentary computer programs offer a way to solve problems in many

branches of science without thedrudgery and limitations of con-ventional equations and equation-based simulations.

Although equations haveformed the foundation of mathand theoretical science for cen-turies, they often become insolu-ble when applied to complex phe-nomena. By contrast, Wolframcontends, simple, complexity-generating programs are the toolsof “a new kind of science” that,more accurately and easily thanthe old one, can simulate compli-cated phenomena, from thegrowth of snowflakes to the work-ings of the universe.

According to Wolfram, thisstyle of simulation will be suc-cessful because it mimics how theuniverse works: Computationalprocesses underlie phenomenafrom elementary particle interac-tions to life.

Wolfram has spun off a lot ofexhilarating ideas about wherethis new approach can lead. Forexample, rather than needingDarwinian evolution to explain

the complexity of living creatures (SN: 6/10/00, p. 382), Wol-fram says that a biological computation process based on a fewsimple rules could do the trick. In physics, Wolfram’s approachsuggests that space itself may not be a continuous entity butrather some sort of network of interconnected fragments. The

ARTFUL AUTOMATON — The pattern from Rule 110—a simple computer algorithm known as a cellular automaton—looks orderly in these initial rows but grows extraordinarilycomplex. In this artist’s depiction, colored disks against anabstract design replace black boxes on a white background.

NS.BOB.8-16 8/13/03 15:10 Page 106

W W W. S C I E N C E N E W S. O R G A U G U S T 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 V O L . 1 6 4 1 0 7

R.K

RA

WC

ZYK

/ILL

INO

IS IN

ST O

F TE

CH

NO

LOG

Y

unpredictability of patterns generated by simple programs, hesays, explains how people can exercise free will while their brainsobey strict physical laws.

Although Wolfram calls his approach a new kind of science,some elements of it, such as cellular automata, have been investi-gated for decades. His new work also has links to earlier theoriesof fractals (SN: 2/2/02, p. 75), of chaos (SN: 10/31/98, p. 285),and of complexity theory (SN: 5/6/00, p. 296). In fact, Wolframhas in the past made notable contributions to research on cellu-lar automata and complexity.

For that reason among others, the man behind A New Kind ofScience isn’t easily labeled a crackpot. A British-born prodigy,he received a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from the CaliforniaInstitute of Technology at age 20 and won a MacArthur Foun-dation “genius” award 2 years later,in 1981, for his work in physics andcomputing. Later, he createdMathematica, a software packagefor scientists, engineers and math-ematicians, and developed it into ahighly profitable business—Wol-fram Research of Champaign, Ill.—which he still leads.

Because of Wolfram’s credentials,heavy hitters of science and tech-nology have paid attention to hisbook, though not necessarilypraised it. In the New York Reviewof Books last October, physics Nobellaureate Steven Weinberg of theUniversity of Texas at Austin con-cluded that Wolfram had written a“failure,” albeit “an interesting one.”Weinberg found that “not one real-world complex phenomenon . . . hasbeen convincingly explained byWolfram’s computer experiments.”Still, he added, Wolfram may havetaken a first step toward a much-needed theory of complexity.

A critique by inventor and artifi-cial intelligence pioneer Ray Kurzweil of Kurzweil Technologies inWellesley Hills, Mass., hails Wolfram’s work as a “tour de force” onthe topic of cellular automata. Nonetheless, Kurzweil says thatWolfram seriously overstated the complexity that simple programsproduce. On the topic of living organisms, for instance, Kurzweilasserts that unless factors beyond simple rules are invoked, one can’texplain “insects or humans or Chopin preludes.”

Fans of Wolfram’s work say that much of the negative reactionhas stemmed more from the author’s self-aggrandizing writingstyle than from his science. For instance, Wolfram says in his book,“I have discovered vastly more than I ever thought possible, andin fact what I have now done touches almost every existing areaof science, and quite a bit besides.”

Fans look beyond his habit of frequently and brashly proclaimingthe historic importance of his findings. “I believe that some of theideas in A New Kind of Science are going to be very valuable to us indeveloping predictive models,” says medical researcher Elaine L.Bearer of Brown University in Providence, R.I.

RITE OF ASSEMBLY Compared with the harsh treatmentWolfram endured from many reviewers last year, the recentconference on his work was a love fest. More than 200 men andwomen, paying up to $325 apiece, attended the event June26–29 at a hotel in Waltham, Mass. They ranged from collegestudents to retirees and represented an eclectic mix of profes-sions and interests, including physics, biology, psychology, med-icine, computer science, engineering, economics, business, art,

and music. Attendees came from as far away as Norway, Israel,and Australia.

Some people said they were drawn by their admiration for Wol-fram; others, by the allure of participating in what could be a his-torical shift in scientific thought.

“This guy is the closest thing to [Isaac] Newton in 350 years,”says Stanley Ruby, a physicist who retired from Stanford (Calif.)Linear Accelerator Center 9 years ago. “I think he’s onto some-thing hugely important.”

Others, like Carl E. Lippitt of Sandia National Laboratories inAlbuquerque, came looking for help with applying Wolfram’s con-cepts to engineering designs.

For instance, Lippitt and his Sandia colleagues are exploringcontrol schemes for proposed battlefield robots that would aid sol-

diers, for example by carrying extragear. Because the battlefield is sucha complex environment, thoserobots would require intricatebehavioral repertoires. That’s whereWolfram’s ideas of generating com-plexity from simplicity seem to fitin, Lippitt says. Yet Lippitt couldn’tfind in Wolfram’s book guidance fordeveloping practical devices.

“It’s somewhat difficult to under-stand, from an engineering per-spective, how you go about imple-menting these ideas,” Lippitt says.

During the two-and-a-half-day“minicourse,” Wolfram did most ofthe talking—about 15 hours’ worthof lectures—although there were afew panel discussions.

The meeting was too one-sided,says mathematician and science fic-tion author Rudy Rucker of San Jose(Calif.) State University, even thoughhe’s a fan and friend of Wolfram’s. “Itwould be a better conference if some-body besides Stephen was organizingit. Then it could be more of a full

spectrum” of opinions, he says.Kurzweil Tech’s vice president of business development Celia

Black-Brooks says the meeting’s science was over her head, but shehad no trouble appreciating the business savvy of Wolfram’s firm. “Hecertainly has a well-oiled marketing machine behind him,” she adds.

Wolfram unveiled no new developments in his own work at theconference because there haven’t been any to speak of since thebook was finished, he told Science News. He says he’s been too busygiving talks at campuses and laboratories, responding to the 30,000or so e-mails prompted by the book, and striving to build a scien-tific movement based on his work. Wolfram predicts that it will beanother year before he can get back to the science.

On the other hand, at the conference’s poster session, about 10of the conference goers unveiled projects in which they had usedWolfram’s style of computer modeling to explore areas as diverseas explosion dynamics, quantum mechanics, data visualization,and cultural identity.

Among those projects was a cellular automaton created by physi-cist Larry G. Hill of Los Alamos (N.M.) National Laboratory. Thealgorithm yields an animation that may mark the first step towardrealistic computer models of explosions caused by superheatedliquids, Hill says. The dynamics of those fluids have proved too com-plex for today’s conventional equation-based simulations, he adds.

In another project, electrical engineer Rodrigo G. Obando ofFairfield (Conn.) University statistically analyzed cellular automatapatterns and translated the results into three-dimensional formsresembling disks, bowls, and hats. Comparing the shapes of those

BUILDING BLOCKS — A proposed architectural-designtool, inspired by cellular automata, spurs innovation designby exploiting a few simple rules for stacking and removingblocks to generate complex building-like structures.

NS.BOB.8-16 8/13/03 15:10 Page 107

S C I E N C E N E W S1 0 8 A U G U S T 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 V O L . 1 6 4

of the University of Toronto. “We don’t yet have the human evi-dence of that, but that’s the excitement that’s underlying this field.”

VERSATILE VERSIONS When Eng in 1996 presented his datashowing that synthetic exendin-4 showed a benefit in diabetes-prone mice, Amylin Pharmaceuticals of San Diego took note. Sincethen, the company and several other research groups have beguntesting long-lasting GLP1 mimics in people with type 2 diabetes.Like GLP1, the experimental drugs seem to have the uncanny capa-bility to trigger only enough insulin production for efficient glu-cose metabolism. They switch on insulin secretion by beta cellswhen blood-glucose concentrations rise after a meal.

Amylin’s Alain D. Baron reported at the June diabetes meetingthat exenatide, the synthetic version of exendin-4, lasts 6 hours intype 2 diabetes patients. Twice-daily injections of the drug inducedsignificant blood-glucose declines in roughly half of 63 patients whohad insulin resistance so severe that oral medication had failed them.

What’s more, the activity of exenatide doesn’t shut off com-pletely when it’s no longer detectable in the blood, Baron notes.“Clearly, the drug has an effect above and beyond the time it’sadministered,” he says.

Exenatide caused nausea in some patients, but this side effectfaded after several weeks, Baron adds.

If exenatide works as well in a larger study, it might substitute forinsulin injections. Amylin is working with Eli Lilly and Co. of Indi-anapolis to develop a long-acting, slow-release version contained ininjectable biodegradable polymer beads.

At the same meeting, the drug company Novo Nordisk ofBagsvaerd, Denmark, presented promising results in diabetespatients receiving injections of a GLP1 mimic called NN2211. Tendiabetes patients showed higher beta cell sensitivity to glucosewhen getting NN2211 than when receiving a placebo.

Two other GLP1-based drugs enlist the services of albumin, ablood protein with a long half-life. One, a GLP1 mimic calledCJC-1131, links with albumin in the blood to increase the drug’sdurability. Montreal-based ConjuChem is now testing CJC-1131in people, says Drucker. Although, tests haven’t yet established howlong its effects last, he would like eventually to see a version thatmight be given weekly.

The other drug that relies on albumin is called Albugon. Scien-tists at Human Genome Sciences ofRockville, Md., bioengineered it fromthe genes for GLP1 and albumin.Albugon lasts roughly 11 hours wheninjected into mice and 3 days whengiven to monkeys, says Adam C. Bell,one of the drug’s developers.

The way that GLP1—and the drugspatterned after it—appropriatelyswitch on insulin secretion by betacells only when blood-glucose con-centrations rise would give such ther-apy a great advantage over currentinjected insulin, Bell says.

“The body has evolved an intricatesystem to sense intake of energy,”

Drucker explains, and gut cells making GLP1 and other com-pounds are an integral part of it. “Turning some of these gut hor-mones into drugs may, in fact, open us up to new treatments fordiabetes,” he says.

“To promote the formation of new beta cells and prevent thedeath of susceptible beta cells—that may well transform the waywe think about the natural history of diabetes,” Drucker says.

Baron predicts that Amylin Pharmaceuticals will next year applyto the Food and Drug Administration for approval for exenatide. �

“Turning some of these guthormones intodrugs may, infact, open usup to newtreatments for diabetes.”—DANIEL J. DRUCKER

Continued from page 104

forms may reveal relative degrees of symmetry, complexity, and ran-domness of automata patterns, Obando says.

VENUE MENU Besides hosting the conference, Wolfram andhis associates are moving ahead on other fronts to foster a new sci-entific movement.

At the meeting—which planners say will berepeated next year—Wolfram distributed a book-let summarizing more than 170 problems andprojects that he considers next steps for thefield that he has launched: for instance, to“develop automated ways to find ‘inter-esting’ cellular automata” and to con-sider “what might history have beenlike if cellular automata had been inves-tigated in antiquity.”

Wolfram also announced the startof an online clearinghouse for relatedresearch (http://atlas.wolfram.com)and to found an institute devoted to theapproach. What’s more, he said he’s plan-ning to transform Complex Systems, a jour-nal that he founded in 1987, into the flagshippublication for the new field.

Although the scientific establishment haslargely rejected Wolfram’s revolution, academia fea-tures a few courses on the topic. For instance, San Jose State’sRucker has been teaching a graduate course on it since thefall of 2002, and Wolfram and his assistants taught a 3-weekgraduate course in early July at Brown University.

”One of the things universities should do is to be a home forideas that are controversial, whose long-term potential is uncer-tain, and that generate a lot of interest and excitement,” says Brown’sprovost, mathematician Robert J. Zimmer. He invited the Wolfram

program onto the campus after a Wolfram talk at the school lastOctober proved so popular that people had to be turned away.

One effect of Wolfram’s campaign for a new science has beento intensify interest in some longstanding ideas that don’t meshwith prevailing theories. For instance, in the early 1980s, Edward

Fredkin originated the idea that the universe itself maybe a cellular automaton and that energy and mass

are just information (SN: 8/2/97, p. 76). InFredkin’s model, both space and time are

grainy rather than continuous, so space ispermeated with exquisitely small, dis-

crete cells whose states change atextremely brief, discrete intervals, justas patterns generated by computers’cellular automata do.

Fredkin, now of Carnegie Mel-lon University in Pittsburgh, com-plains that Wolfram has takencredit for some of his ideas. At the

same time, he says, his now-famousfriend and rival has “done me a favor

because a lot more people are inter-ested in what I do because ofWolfram’s notoriety.“

Wolfram says he’s pleased withthe his enterprise’s progress, whichis “a little ahead of schedule.” Look-ing ahead, he predicts that the “firstround of serious extensions to the

book” will come in 2 to 3 years.To skeptics and enthusiasts alike, Wolfram readily declares that

the revolution has begun. Nonetheless, “it’s going to be a while,”he admits—another 10 years or so—before his approach will takethe place he thinks it deserves at the forefront of science. �

CIRCLING THE SQUARE — Asimple computer program obeying elementary rules creates a strikingly nonrectilin-ear pattern on a square grid.

J.P

RO

PP

/UN

IV W

ISC

ON

SIN

-MA

DIS

ON

NS.BOB.8-16 8/13/03 15:10 Page 108