FEATURE ARTICLE
Science in 2006
A former IBM chief scientist looks ahead from 1986 into the twenty-first century
Lewis Branscomb
Science and the Arts
Indeed, the power of information science to broaden the scope of artistic creativity brought the natural alliance of science and art into full view. By 2006 colleges of arts and sciences were alive with aesthetic excitement, which took many forms. The word "arts" in the school title took on new meaning. The old electronic music, produced on primitive synthesizers back in the 1960s and 1970s, gave way to music created through the application of artificial intelligence to harmony and structure. Dancers created their own accompaniment by translating holographic images of their bodies into music. Graphic arts received stimulation from the extraordinary power of three-dimensional color graphics, extended to video form.
These new artistic media were not only offshoots of science; they were the external representation of scientific results. There had always been an important aesthetic element in criteria for scientific "truth"; scientists spoke of an "elegant" proof, a "beautiful" result, a "well-behaved" solution. But simplicity was the cardinal ingredient of Newtonian scientific beauty. Now with new, more powerful techniques for visualizing scientific models and concepts, and with the theoretical power to tackle complex phenomena, the opportunity for a flowering of the artistic potential of science was at hand.
There was a new interest in the life of Leonardo da Vinci, who best embodies this tradition: the conviction that the eye is the most powerful tool of discovery, and that complex phenomena can be understood without draining them of the complexity that is fundamental to nature.
Social Science Links with Natural Science
The powerful trend toward the reunification of the disciplines made slower progress in the social sciences. Creative intuition is a valuable-even essential-tool for both scientific and artistic progress. In the social sciences, however, intuition had long proved a dangerous trap. It was easier to be objective when man studied nature. Man's study of man is the ultimate challenge. But the challenge had to be faced.
Behavioral science had built links to many areas of natural science through their common interest in man: his physiology and his brain. Computer science was leaving behind its empirical, engineering-oriented phase and was making steady fundamental progress in supporting the human mind. By 2006 you could not earn a Ph.D. in computer science without studies in depth in psychology. To design machines to help people, you had to know something about people.
As the first science devoted to the study of a human artifact, computer science had faced an almost insuperable difficulty. How can one build a quantitative conceptual base for the field without a reliable model of the human mind? The primitive twentieth-century notion of "artificial intelligence" used a caricature of a human for its paradigm. By 2006, in studies of the brain permitted behavioral science to link up with computer science to explore how computers could not only help man with logical thinking but relate to his personality in a compatible, supportive way. The study of artificial personality had caught up with the study of artificial intelligence.
A Science of Learning
This bridge to natural science had a stimulating effect throughout the social sciences. The new information technology gave psychology a quantitative research tool. Molecular biology and modern genetics shed new light on the behavior of all living species, including man.
The biggest impact was in education, where the new information tools made it far easier to quantify learning experiences. The study of learning flowered as a branch of basic cognitive science. Now every learner, supported by an appropriately intelligent workstation, could measure and maximize his own rate and effectiveness of learning. Once the educational system adapted to the concept of self-paced learning (and the transition was still far from complete in 2006), there was an explosion of educational productivity, which at last began to release resources that could be invested in the essential, human side of education: shared values and experiences, the enhancement of wisdom, and a firmer base of knowledge.
Science in a Societal Context
Another force was even more important in creating bridges between the natural and the social sciences. Natural scientists had long realized that their work had a social context which it was important to understand. For many years they had debated the impact of their discoveries, but they were slow to look to collaboration with the social sciences as a means of influencing the effects of new technologies on society. There were serious debates about such cooperation, for it was not without its controversial elements. Some of the oldest retired scientists in 2006 could still remember a naive but well-intentioned program sponsored by the National Science Foundation way back in the 1960s called Research Applied to National Needs (RANN). In RANN the participation of social scientists had been mandated in each project. The promise of social benefits inherent in the program's name was not consistent with the focus of the projects on fundamental research. It gave collaboration between natural and social science a bad name for a long, long time. But by 2006 it had become dear-desperately clear-that without the direct involvement of large teams of scientists in global problems, the future for mankind might be dismal indeed.
This conviction had been sealed, finally, by a calamity and a near calamity. Back in 1988, as Americans prepared for the presidential campaign, it had become all too obvious that environmental destruction from acid rain was no longer a problem just for the Northeast and Canada. Indeed, it was the victory of the Green Party in Germany, following public outrage at the death of the Black Forest and of countless lakes and streams, that finally persuaded the US administration to take urgent action. By then it was too late to prevent serious economic harm, as well as a significant impact on the quality of life. Scientists became more than ever convinced that they could not just issue the warning and ask for research funds to study such impending problems. They had to be part of the solution.
The clincher was, of course, not acid rain but the threat of mutual nuclear destruction. The political campaigns of 1988 and 1992 were boisterous and emotional, as scientists, young people, and many other concerned citizens challenged the strategic defense policies of the leading candidates. But it was not until the problem of war and peace was approached as a matter worthy of serious research-from the perspective of the origins of conflict and modes of negotiation on the social science side, and from the viewpoint of the design of fail-safe strategic systems on the science and engineering side- that a more rational and less emotional attitude began to emerge.
Many thought that the turning point was the establishment of five International Centers for the Study of Human Conflicts in Washington, Moscow, Beijing, Paris, and Rio de Janeiro. These centers were based on the very successful model of the international laboratories of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), and like them were funded jointly by governments (through their arms control agencies) and by foundations and international corporations.
» Post Comment