Is today's academic and corporate culture stifling science's risk-takers and stopping disruptive, revolutionary science from coming to the fore? Writing in Physics World, Mark Buchanan looks at those who have shifted scientific paradigms and asks what we can do to make sure that those who have the potential to change our outlook on the world also have the opportunity to do so.
When Max Planck accidentally discovered quantum theory, he kick-started the most significant scientific revolution of the 20th century; his colleague, Wilhelm Röntgen's experiments with cathode rays led inadvertently to the discovery of X-rays, which ultimately revolutionised modern medical practice; and US physicists at Bell Labs, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, detected cosmic wave background radiation -- the echo of the Big Bang -- when trying to get rid of the annoying noise being picked up by their microwave receiver.
Would today's physicists, plagued by the publish-or-perish ethic, have the same freedom to explore their findings?
Buchanan looks at suggestions that scientists themselves could take a financial risk in speculative research depending on whether they do or do not think it will pay off, as well as proposals - through, say, 10-year fellowships - that allow scientists to pursue really "hard", long-standing problems without the pressure for rapid results.
Econophysics
They also tackle the emergence of "econophysics", which originally stemmed from research at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico. In the article, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, head of research at Capital Fund Management, explains how "Econophysics" seeks to construct a much more complete picture of the economy through power-laws and "toy" models inspired by physics. Going beyond our flawed classical understanding of economics, which assumes that the markets act rationally, it is an example of truly innovative, inter-disciplinary physics that could change the way we view our world.
As Buchanan writes, "The price to pay for not moving to re-establish [scientific] independence will lie in a failure to realise the huge and unpredictable discoveries that move science forward most in the long term – discoveries made possible only when individuals leap out of what is comfortable and accepted, and wander out into spaces unknown."
Articles
Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, 'The (unfortunate) complexity of the economy", Physics World, April 2009
Comments
Seems to me that the issue is about money and not much about publishing. It also seems that we've politicized science enough regarding research funds, that the first question is "what good is it?" Since no politician wants to be viewed as giving money away for projects that can be ridiculed in public, then there is more and more pressure for applications regardless of how tenous the link.
In addition, we have to consider how much funding really should occur, versus what constitutes a scientifically advancing study. After all, how much grant money was needed to develop the Special Theory of Relativity?
I'm not suggesting that money isn't necessary, but I think scientists also need to step back and recognize that while a cure for cancer/HIV may be desirable, or a trip to Mars, in the end these are technological objectives and not primarily scientific. I realize that many may argue with my use of terminology, but the principles of physics mentioned were not developed because we wanted to travel in space. They occurred because of trying to solve problems in a discipline that everyone thought was almost fully understood.
In effect, I'm saying that perhaps we need to stop focusing on specific results and allow some segment of the scientific community to simply focus on answering basic questions. Invariably it's the basic ideas that allow progress, and not simply trying to produce results.
Gerhard Adam | 04/05/09 | 20:04 PM
I found this statement patronizing. Physics doesn't need to justify itself by extension into economics. If economists want theories, then there's certainly enough of them wandering around the planet to give it a go. It doesn't matter where the ideas or work originate, but this statement irritated me, because for decades we've been listening to the nonsense foisted on us as "economic theory", and now someone suggests that perhaps we need some physics principles to bring it into reality.
Science needs to stay out of politics and public policy. Without that, scientists become just another special interest group.
Gerhard Adam | 04/05/09 | 20:09 PM
Looks like I succeeded.
Physics doesn't need to justify itself by extension into economics.
I read that the other way round, after following a few leads. It looks like economics is trying to take on board some lessons from physics. Now, provided only that they truly understand the tools, may that not lead them to new insights? Or will they cut themselves shaving corners?
If
economists want theories, then there's certainly enough of them
wandering around the planet to give it a go. It doesn't matter where
the ideas or work originate, but this statement irritated me, because
for decades we've been listening to the nonsense foisted on us as
"economic theory", and now someone suggests that perhaps we need some
physics principles to bring it into reality.
Perhaps for too long economics has been exactly that: a bunch of 'just another' theories. It may well be, as you imply, that physics has little to gain from economics. But economics has much to gain from physics.
Governments tend to listen hard to economists. So when the day comes that economists start to agree with and endorse ecologists and such, then I, for one, if still living, will breath a huge sigh of relief.
NAAFJ
Patrick Lockerby | 04/05/09 | 20:32 PM
Hank Campbell | 04/05/09 | 21:07 PM
quisquiliarum init, exit quisquiliarum. :)
Patrick Lockerby | 04/05/09 | 22:00 PM
Gerhard Adam | 04/05/09 | 22:15 PM
Consumer debt at an all time high; economics want more consumer spending. Apparently it's "rational" to consider that 20%-30% of disposal income should be locked up in non-productive interest payments. Apparently it's "rational" to pit multi-billion dollar global organizations against start-ups. Apparently it's "rational" to have companies control both the supply and demand side of the equation (i.e. oil companies between drilling and refining).
Perhaps a biological model might be more apt. You cannot have a host (economy) that is infested with parasites that continue to suck its blood and then expect it to be vibrant and responsive.
Gerhard Adam | 04/06/09 | 11:56 AM
Perhaps we need an article on the unfortunate complexity of April's tradition.
The bad news day effect is now widely know - it is a day when the cynic and the unethical bury their bad news under worse news and hope it goes un-noticed.
It is always risky to publish genuine news on 1st April. Unless it is trite or boring it may well be seen as yet another spoof.
May I suggest a standard, a stamp of authority, a universal hallmark of quality?
YAS
- Yet Another Spoof
or
NAAFJ
This is - Not An April Fool Joke.