Henry Petroski, a professor of civil engineering and a professor of history at Duke University recently wrote an article titled "Development and research" [American Scientist, Vol. 85, May-June, (1997) pp. 210-213]. In this paper he made a case to justify the present day shift of science funding from the previous linear approach which was to fund research first and then follow it by funding development. Petroski tells us that Vannevar Bush's 1945 report to USA's President Truman titled "Science - the Endless Frontier" is the basis for which research for the sake of research is justified. He argues that the Bushian premise was "that scientific progress through unfettered basic research was essential to conquer disease, to provide new products and industries and jobs, and to enable the development of new weapons for national defense." This paradigm for research and development is a distinctly linear one where basic precedes applied research, which in turn precedes technology.
Petroski argues that the technology of shooting missiles and projectiles from bows, cannons and other weapons had long been developing before Galileo set down his axiomatic treatment of the process dynamics. Petroski also argues that considerable development of steam engines had occurred before the science of thermodynamics gave the operation a theoretical basis. These and other examples are used to argue that the Bushian linear model of research leading ultimately to development appears not only overly simplistic but also downright backwards. Petroski argues that today's tight budgets suggest that there needs to be support for engineering technology led by social and national needs. Development and not research should be the engine driving to these goals.
Who is right? Should it be the old school of research first with development to follow? Or should it be the development of technology with research used as an aide?
As I pondered this question at first I wanted to keep my old fashion belief of research first. Why change something that has shown some success. However, if we look at history we see that development driven programs have at times also worked. The space race to put a man on the moon was a prime example of a development driven program. But part of the reason for the success was that financial constraints were minimal.
Development driven research has a major problem. It is a true gamble to put money on research and hope that a specific discovery will occur so that the specific development can continue. On the other
hand, it is well established that research often leads to discovery of a new phenomenon even though the original research often failed. As a result, past experience tells us that if we let development lead the way we can expect the development to at times also fail because the research that is requested will sometimes fail. On the other hand, some programs will succeed, and some of the programs that fail will have positive spin off results.
Thus, it would seem reasonable to split the funding with some percentage going into pure research and the remainder into directed development to address the social and national needs. That will insure both a supply of new (serendipitously discovered) phenomena for future development as well as an effort to meet the social and national needs. The difficult part will still be the prioritization of the social and national needs. A limited fund always means a limit on what is developed. Unfortunately, prioritization usually means the person with the most clout decides where the money is spent. Perhaps it is time to find a new way to prioritize; maybe it is time for major social programs to be put to the voters for prioritization.
These are changing times both for government funding and for industrial funding. I would welcome ESA members to submit their thoughts on this issue for inclusion in a future ESA Newsletter.
..For the Friendly Society, .. Albert E. Seaver
After the June ESA/IEJ Meeting in Stanford, I headed north to rendezvous with a former graduate student of mine for a Spring telemark skiing trip in the Oregon Cascades. With heavy backpacks, we hiked and then skied in, camping on a saddle at about 9000 feet in the Sisters Wilderness Area. I am happy to report that the skiing was great and that I suffered no worse injury than sunburn.
Of special interest to ESA members might be our experience with static electrification during a buildup of thunderheads one afternoon. We were camped on a snowfield that was probably 3 to 5 feet deep. One afternoon, resting in camp after a morning of skiing on the glacier, we watched massive thunderheads build up and listened to their distant thunder. The skiis and poles were stuck upright in the snow near the tents. After the top of one of the thunderheads was sheared off by wind to form an anvil at high altitude directly overhead, one of our party said he smelled ozone. A bit later, another person -- unfortunately not me -- distinctly heard corona discharges emanating from our skiis and poles. We quickly retired from the area where the tents were pitched, dropping off a flat area on the saddle and waiting it out perched uncomfortably on a loose, unstable pile of volcanic rock, well away from the snowfield. There never occurred any strikes near us, and, returning later to the tent site, we noticed no further discharges.
Some very intriguing questions arise from this experience. Are snow fields or glaciers virtually transparent to the electrostatic potential? Or do they behave like a ground plane? Does lightning ever strike snow, and if so to what effect? It is well-known that, when lightning hits the ground, one can receive a serious shock or be electrocuted by surface currents radiating outward from the point of the strike. Does the same occur for strikes hitting snow or ice? I would be interested to learn if anybody else has had experience with lightning on snow or knows of any references on the subject. ..Tom Jones
At the ASAE Annual International Meeting in June, Dr. Law received the 1998 Cyrus Hall McCormick-Jerome Increase Case Gold Medal. This medal is presented "For Exceptional and Meritorious Engineering Achievement in Agriculture". ESA is well aware of Ed's many accomplishments for which he received ESA's Lifetime Achievement Award at our June 1998 conference. We are proud to have him as an ESA member and congratulate him on this new recognition.
The Steel Tank Institute, an international trade association representing fabricators of factory-built storage tanks, is looking for information on the use of electrostatic charges or triboelectric effects to enhance separation of hydrocarbons from waste-water streams. Applications typically include oil-water separators at automotive repair garages, marine facilities and small fuel terminals.
If anyone can provide information or advice, please send to: Mr. Wayne Geyer, Steel Tank Institute, 570 Oakwood Rd., Lake Zurich, IL 60047.
At our Stanford meeting in June 1998, I described a number of materials at the banquet. Some of this description was rather classical and some was distinctly modern, with leads right up to the present. (For those who didn't attend, the older approach emphasizes bulk properties, while the newer stresses individual atoms.)
After the banquet talk, several members asked for more information, which I sent. Now I have come across a large book called Made to Measure: New Materials for the 21st Century. Written by Philip Ball, it is copyrighted 1997 by Princeton University Press. This book contains many different areas including smart materials, biomaterials, photonic materials, polymers, and diamonds. With over 400 pages and an extensive bibliography, it should guide you to any areas of modern materials research. If I had known of this book last spring, I would have shown you the beautiful picture of 48 iron atoms!
.. Glenn Schmieg
Thanks to Peter Castle for sending us these photos from our conference in Palo Alto. On the right below is Arthur D. Moore, Jr. giving us some stories about his father, the founder of ESA.
Below on the left is Dr. Glenn Schmieg talking about the above mentioned 48 iron atom during his after dinner lecture on Usual and Unusual Materials. Peter says, "We can now truly refer to Glenn as the 'ironman'". "We can now truly refer to Glenn as the 'ironman'".he ASAE Annual International Meeting in June, Dr. Law received the 1998 Cyrus Hall McCormick-Jerome Increase Case Gold Medal. This medal is presented "For Exceptional and Meritorious Engineering Achievement in Agriculture". ESA is well aware of Ed's many accomplishments for which he received ESA's lifetime Achievement Award at our June 1998 conference. We are proud to have him as an ESA member and congratulate him on this new recognition.NCE PHOTOGRAPHS
Thanks to Peter Castle for sending us these photos from our conference in Palo Alto. On the right below is Arthur D. Moore, Jr. giving us some stories about his father, the founder of ESA.
Below on the left is Dr. Glenn Schmieg talking about the above mentioned 48 iron atom during his after dinner lecture on Usual and Unusual Materials. Peter says "we can now truly refer to Glenn as the 'ironman'".
At the ASAE Annual International Meeting in June, Dr. Law received the 1998 Cyrus Hall McCormick-Jerome Increase Case Gold Medal. This medal is presented by the ASAE "For Exceptional and Meritorious Engineering Achievement in Agriculture". ESA is well aware of Ed's many accomplishments for which he received ESA's Lifetime Achievement Award at our June 1998 conference. We are proud to have him as an ESA member and congratulate him on this new recognition.