The Topic
Today is the last day of the workshop in Spain that I mentioned in last week's post. One of the interesting aspects of this workshop was that, apart from the talks with technical focus, there were panel discussions about larger scientific issues. One such discussion addressed the important topic:
How much scientific research should be curiosity-based and how much focused on well-defined applications?
The Panel
The distinguished panel consisted of
i) Anthony Leggett: Nobel prize in physics (2003). Professor at Urbana-Champaign; widely considered a leading authority on low-temperature and quantum physics.
ii) Mario Rasetti: Majorana Prize (2011). A distinguished physicist now working on artificial intelligence and complex systems.
iii) Natan Andrei: Lars Onsager prize (2017). Professor at Rutgers; works on string theory and highly correlated electronic systems (e.g. superconductivity)
iv) Charles Clark: Gold Medal, U.S. Department of Commerce (2011 and 2004). Ex-Director, Joint Quantum Institute, University of Maryland.
v) Jose Ignacio Lattore: Director of Center of Quantum Technologies in Singapore. Author of the books Quantum, your future at stake (Ariel, 2017) and Ethics for machines (Ariel, 2019).
The audience had about 30 people out of all the attendees at the conference. The discussion was moderated by the conference leader, Prof. Luigi Amico, executive director of the Technology Innovation Institute, Abu Dhabi.
The Discussion
A number of interesting and sometimes differing perspectives emerged from the opinions of the panelists and the audience. Here's a few:
i) There is a false dichotomy between basic and applied research; in reality they go hand in hand.
Someone mentioned, as an example, the case of Planck, who was hired by an energy company to optimize their light bulbs and went on to shake the world with the discovery of quantum physics. However, I later found this may be a myth - Planck was apparently never hired by any company; he considered blackbody radiation purely as an academic problem. Stay tuned for clarifications.
A second example - whose veracity I do believe - involved the development of laser cooling of atoms, which was initially funded by the navy as a technology for making more precise clocks, eventually became a platform for many fundamental studies, and was awarded the Nobel prize for physics. Actually this theme still persists, as a mix of curiosity-driven many body physics being explored (using concepts like entanglement) for making better clocks. You can get a sense for this from the interview with Ana Maria Rey, one of the stars of the field.
To this list maybe we could add the ongoing search for high temperature superconductivity, which will undoubtedly have pointed economic effects once realized, but in the meantime is generating very subtle physics concepts and sophisticated mathematical models.
ii) Nowadays it is difficult for a scientist to obtain government funding unless they promise an application.
In my experience, as long as there are no precise deliverables (perhaps these are more suitable for engineering projects), there's usually enough flexibility - if not pressing need - to carry out both curious exploration and pointed realization as part of the grant.
The funding agencies, of course, determine the ratio of the two types of research, and the program managers (at least in the United States) are usually good at picking the projects with appropriate combinations. Having said that, there is a distribution of course - some agencies keep a tight leash on the research, requiring frequent reports of concrete advances, while others provide a longer leash (mine require yearly reports).
iii) There should always be some funding explicitly allocated for blue-sky research.
There is a saying that in order to produce useful research you should give money to some intelligent and creative people and leave them alone. This may be difficult to achieve in the letter, with resources being finite, but I think the spirit of it is correct.
In this context I'm reminded of Abraham Flexner's essay on the Usefulness of Useless Knowledge. Flexner was the founder-director of the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, where Einstein lived out his last years. His point was that research that initially seems abstruse and pointless at first sometimes turns out to be powerfully life-changing. The question, skeptics ask, is how many times.
iv) Nowadays, all the good students are being lured away by big money tech jobs, leaving the universities without an essential core of researchers in basic physics.
I can identify with this. Certainly in my experience, hiring capable postdocs and getting them to stay in academia has become more difficult in the last 5 years. I hear this from colleagues worldwide as well. As we have only just started a physics PhD program at RIT, I guess it will take some time to figure out what the dynamic of graduate admission is going to be like.
The Conclusion
The assembly decided that the topic was crucially important and scientists ought to keep an eye on it, especially in the rapidly changing technology - read quantum and AI - scenario. Would, someone asked, AI be eventually able to do basic research? Not before I retire, I hope [and in case you did not catch my earlier post, I intend to never retire -:)].
Comments