The Question

[Harrison Owen]

Dave -- Thanks for the stories. I would love to have met your Dr. Randall.
Sounds pretty much like Bentley Glass and a number of other top scientists I
have known. And yes, the sad fate of research in Oz is pretty much
paralleled by a similar fate here in the US. Thirty years ago when I was at
our National Institutes of Health there was a marvelous Pulmonary
Physiologist by the name of Julius Camero (sp?). I think it is fair to say
that just about everything we have learned about the human lung came from
his lab. Anyhow Julius worshiped at the altar of serendipity. And he drove
the bureaucrats crazy -- because he just refused to be programmed. However,
the quality of his science was such that they really couldn't stand in his
way, especially when he adopted a most interesting strategy. He would apply
for a grant to prove what he already knew, and get enough money so he could
spend most of his time exploring what he didn't know. He always came in
right on time and within budget, and the green eyeshades never quite figured
it out. And then on the next grant cycle he applied for more money to
discover what he already knew -- and so on.

Harrison

Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, Maryland   20845
Phone 301-365-2093

Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com
Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org
Personal website http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hhowen/index.htm
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives Visit:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html



-----Original Message-----
From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of David
Smith
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:19 PM
To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Subject: Re: OSLIST Digest - 6 Feb 2005 to 7 Feb 2005 (#2005-36)

Harrison, your essay on The Question is eloquent and raises many, many
thoughts.

The importance of the question - reflections from a former scientist...

When I was doing research in zoology, our seminar program was a central
feature of how our department functioned. And the essence of the seminar was
the questions being asked. I once worked in a lab in Sweden and was
cautioned when about to give my first seminar that "Swedish graduates focus
so much on the quality of the question, rather than the quality of the
answer, that you may find there are no questions asked at all." This was
indeed the case - apparently, culturally, the graduates were actually afraid
of being seen to ask a "dumb question" - to the extent that this fear
effectively paralysed the intellectual process. Coming from my background, I
would have been sure I'd given a lousy seminar, if not for the forewarning!

Another offshoot of my research experiences was that it gradually dawned on
me that the process of scientific inverstigation never actually concluded
with "an answer" - all that emerged were new questions, questions that
couldn't even have been formulated before the first investigation had run
its course. So I agree totally that asking the right question is critical.

In Australia funding for research has gone down a disastrous track. In order
to achieve funding you have to be able to demonstrate a kind of 'business
plan' for your research: by 6 months we will have discovered X, by 12 months
Y etc.  Putting it bluntly, you effectively have to know the answer to your
research before you will get a grant. And that means the question being
asked is probably really boring.  In such a scenario, the chance of finding
out something truly novel is minimal. Is it the same in the US? or Europe? I
suspect it is and it's rather sad, because in reality the best and most
remarkable discoveries simply cannot be predicted or shoe-horned into a
'business plan'. If they could they wouldn't be remarkable at all.

Which inevitably brings me back to money and ownership.

Knowledge Management is seen as the path to profit. But knowledge, like the
human (or plant or animal) genome should NEVER be locked up or 'owned'.  One
of the joys of science used to be the open-ness of information exchange.
Sure, you kept new findings under wraps until they were published but then
they were freely available to anyone anywhere. And the global scientific
community was thereby enriched.

Battening down knowledge is a bit like forcing everyone to drive with the
handbrake on - always. Converting knowledge to commodity-status is probably
inevitable in a capitalist society, but it's actually quite a stupid thing
to do. If anything was guaranteed to put the brakes on true innovation and
discovery, the commodification of knowledge would have to be it.

I did my post-doc fellowship in Vancouver Canada. My boss there was Prof
Dave Randall, a truly gifted and humble zoologist who became a great friend.
He wrote an inscription in one of his books ffor me to ponder:

"Ideas are never the property of one person, because they are born and grow
in discussions with others. Thanks for the discussion(even though you don't
play bridge) - may it continue between us. Dave Randall"

Well, that's my two penneth for today - thanks for the triggers, Harrison.

David

Dr David Smith
BSc(Hons) PhD FRSA
Director, imaginACTION pty ltd
Victoria
AUSTRALIA

imaginac at bigpond.net.au

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist