A meeting of scientific council

A meeting of scientific council (28th of November 2010)

Scientific council. Meetings. Sitting. Speech. Silence. Resignation. Giving up. But it happens here and there something interesting. So I decided last time to bring my note book and a thin pencil and sitting in the last row, in the bottom of the hall, I got the chance to see all the Institute's scientists but only from behind. Regardlessly, it seems to me that even with such a viewpoint, I managed to grasp something of the "character" of my "models" in the sketches that I made. It was one of the more interesting meetings although I didn't say a word this time. Besides, it sometimes seem to me that noone has the will to listen what should be said and that which I sometimes say. So I gave up this time.

It is difficult to speak about important issues in science. One should create, think originally, lead and inspire. And that is not easy to do at all, nor it has anything to do with what the "science managers" think should be done in science.

Yesterday I glanced through the book >> "The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science and What Comes Next" by >> Lee Smolin (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006). To be more accurate, I glanced through the middle of the book where the details of the string theory are being discussed, but I read in detail the first and the fourth (last) part of the book that deal with science in general. Smolin writes very nicely, clearly and directly, and in many aspects I agree with him. I found an interesting part related to management of science:

I once worked on a project with a retired general who had headed a college for military officers and then become a business consultant. He talked about his frustrations in trying to work with universities. I asked him what he perceived the problem to be. He said, "There is a simple but essential thing we teach to every Marine officer, that no university administrator I've met seems to know: There is a big difference between management and leadership. You can manage the procurement of supplies, but you must lead soldiers into battle." I agree with him. In my time in universities, I've seen much more management than leadership.

And here is another great part:

Put simply, the physics community is structured in such a way that large research programs that promote themselves aggressively have an advantage over smaller programs that make more cautious claims. Therefore, young academic scientists have the best chance of succeeding if they impress older scientists with technically sweet solutions to long-standing problems posed by dominant research programs. To do the opposite - to think deeply and independently and try to formulate one's own ideas - is a poor strategy for success. Physics thus finds itself unable to solve its key problems. It is time to reverse course - to encourage small, risky new research programs and discourage the entrenched approaches. We ought to be giving the advantage to the Einsteins - people who think for themselves and ignore the established ideas of powerful senior scientists.

And with a mean observation below I finish this post:

It is interesting to note that the quantum-mechanics revolution was made by a virtually orphaned generation of scientists. Many members of the generation above them had been slaughtered in World War I. There simply weren't many senior scientists around to tell them they were crazy.

<< Akahito's waka

It is snow outside >>

Last updated on 28th of November 2010.