Deprecated: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in /home/zhenxiangba/zhenxiangba.com/public_html/phproxy-improved-master/index.php on line 456

Address: [go: Go Back, main page]
Remove Scripts Accept Cookies Show Images Show Referer Rotate13 Base64 Strip Meta Strip Title Session Cookies

Robert B. Laughlin on "Truth, Ownership, and Scientific Tradition"

31 March 2004

I recently read the essay "Truth, Ownership, and Scientific Tradition" (Physics Today, 55, No. 12 (December 2002), p. 10. ) by Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel prize in physics in 1998. This is a lovely, heartfelt defence of classic scientific research, as typically carried out in universities, vis-a-vis research carried out in industry. I share many of the views aired by Robert B. Laughlin, and can only warmly recommend that you read his essay. At times when patents and industrial applicability are becoming more and more important measures of the success and worth of academic research, it is refreshing to read such a luminary in his field write, e.g., that:

It is often argued that industrial deception is a uniquely self-rectifying problem, in that an engineering firm with rotten patents will get a reputation of shoddiness and unreliability and will eventually suffer in the marketplace. But this rottenness can take an extremely long time to reveal itself, while secrecy, accumulated mistakes, and economically motivated disinformation slowly clog the pipeline of innovation. In this sense ownership--more accurately the secrecy it necessitates--is not the engine of progress but its enemy. One cannot both expose knowledge to scrutiny and keep it for one's self to sell. It has to be be one or the other.

This process is why making over universities in the image of business is such a terrible idea. The great power of university research is its openness and the inherent truthfulness--stemming from this openness--of the knowledge it generates. Bell Labs, IBM, Xerox, and others have been traditionally held as a shining examples of how industry could match, and even surpass, university truth-seeking. But recent events tell a much sadder story. In a truly competitive environment an industrial laboratory cannot do academic research--studies on the cutting edge of knowledge with no obvious immediate applicability. Doing such research with private money makes no sense except as a charity or part of an advertizing budget. Similarly, the use of public money in public institutions to generate private property is inherently dicey, no matter how cleverly its proponents argue otherwise. Although making universities into businesses may generate more patents, it also corrupts scientific traditions and causes people of goodwill to become hamstrung by the need to generate property, sliding into mediocrity and dishonesty as a result. I think it is time to realize that the entire model is wrong, and that the product of science in general, and university science in particular, that counts is not intellectual property at all but young people with fiery independence and the courage to take risks.

Call me an idealist, but the epilogue of that essay, viz.

Everything we do in physics is built upon a scaffolding left behind by our predecessors. This scaffolding is reliable and strong because it is lovingly maintained in public by the community of science, not because it is in anyone's self-interest to do so. Thus we are reminded that scientific traditions are a remarkable invention of civilization that, like banking, representative government and law, are difficult to improve. The traditions of science rest fundamentally on a foundation of teaching and learning, and are dedicated to the task of creating new knowlege that is true, not of creating industrial secrets that may or may not be true. This is their unique value to society--the thing science brings to the table that the natural working of the economy cannot. Human weakness and outright criminality pervade our world, and it is simply naive to assume that technical deceptions, some quite sophisticated, will never occur. But so long as the details are made public and dutifully subjected to the harsh light of scientific scrutiny those deceptions will be hunted down and destroyed, just as they have always been. Only in the shadows of proprietary knowledge can they survive to work their mischief.

The career of every scientist is a struggle between the animal needs of economic survival and the higher obligations of citizenship. None of us can repeal the laws of economics, nor would it be desirable even if we could, for economic spin-off is the important tangible benefit society gets from its investment in science. But economics is not fundamentally what science is about. Science is instead about personal sacrifice and uncompromising dedication to clarity, meaningfulness, and truth. For each of us aspiring to a technical career there comes a moment when we must choose between creating knowledge and creating property. Both choices are legitimate and important, but only one is science.

makes my spine tingle, even though I am the first one to question my commitment to Science. Still, I think that it is good for all of us to reflect on the issues masterfully raised by that essay, and to take pride in the hard technical achievements of our branch of Science.