Organized and Unorganized Research' WANDA K . FARR Celonese Corporation of America, Cumberland, Maryland INTRODUCTION
I
N recalling the incidents of a 30-year period of research endeavor, I find that one of my most vivid impressions is connected with the day of arrival in New York to register as a graduate student a t Columbia University. I was armed not only with the necessary credits, but also with the excellent and gratuitous advice of my former professors of Ohio University in Athens. Most of this advice I have not forgotten. The late Doctor Chrisman of the Department of Psychology had told me to be unafraid. It was his considered opinion that some professors in our institutions of higher learning succeed in instilling fear of themselves in the minds of their students; that such fear is not conducive to clear thinking; and that I should have none of it. Some of the professors warned against overwork. From others there were admonitions concerning overplay in the distracting influences of the large city. After listening, with characteristic reserve, to the words of his colleagues, Doctor Copeland of the Department of Botany advised that I size up the situation with reasonable care, and then do exactly as I pleased. ORGANIZED I N D M D U A L RESEARCH
Upon arrival in New York my first act was to call upon my major professor in the Department of Botany. From his secretary I learned that I was to look for him in the departmental greenhouses. A search through the greenhouses was unsuccessful, but from an adjoining plot of corn came the unmistakable sounds of a hoe. Above the tops of the corn plants there soon appeared the genial, perspiring countenance of Doctor Harper. He was working with his experimental material, even the cultivating of which he would trust to no one. His research problem dealt with the inheritance of color in corn kernels, and, during the months that followed, his handling of this problem, hoth outside and within the laboratory, demonstrated that no significant factor was too trivial to command his personal attention. When we heard, in our seminar, a careful analysis and interpretation of the results, we had an impressive demonstration of the reward of patient effort expended in carrying out a specific research task. He had begun with a clearly defined problem; the problem was solved; and through the solution of it he had contributed something to the general knowledgeof inheritance in both plants and animals. The research was its own excuse for being. It was a quest for truth. In its combined aspects such an investigation meets every Address presented at the Women Chemists' Dinner, American Chemical Society. 107th meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, April 4, 1944.
requirement of a strict interpretation of "organized research." By definition, research is: "an exhaustive experimentation having for its aim the discovery of new facts and their correct interpretation," while to organize is: "to arrange or constitute in interdependent parts, each having a special function, act, office, or relation with respect to the whole." To satisfy this definition it is evident that plans for a given piece of research must be made with respect to the solution of the problem and with that viewpoint alone; and that, throughout the entire period of experimentation, the activities of the worker or workers must not stray from the consideration of primary importancethe unsolved question. It is difficult to conceive of a time when the need for such activity did not exist. It is equally difficult t o conceive of a time when the need will have been satisfied. For whenever a veil of ignorance is lifted, in any field of research endeavor, we are confronted with new problems and continued demands upon both our ability and our efforts to solve them. The history of human achievement is, in a sense, a record of the occasions upon which these challenges have been met and overcome; the history of human failure a record of occasions upon which they have been either evaded or have remained unsolved. Our present era would not seem to he lacking in hoth initiative and facilities for rapid developments in the field of research. In fact, it may, in time, come to be characterized by extensive research achievement as compared with eras of the past. How i t will compare, in this respect, with both past and future is a matter for our deepest concern and most careful consideration. PRESENT CONCEPTION OF "ORGANIZED RESEARCH"
The research procedure which I have described occurred a t Columbia University almost 30 years ago. It is not a picture which the words "organized research" are likely to bring to our minds a t the present time. We visualize, on the contrary, many workers, one or more elaborately equipped laboratories, and conference rooms for general discussion of data. The research workers may have had various degrees of training and experience. Many or few techniques may be represented, depending largely upon the problem or types of problems to be solved. The evolution of this new and more elaborate form of organized group research has come with incredible swiftness. To those of us who have witnessed the transition, it seems only a short time since research was al-
most exclusively an individual undertaking, sponsored by academic institutions alone. From our daily encounters with the momentous developments currently in progress, we should be able to understand them and to foresee, to some extent, where they may lead. As a matter of fact, many of us are quite confused with respect to both present and future developments. CURRENT OPINIONS OF ORGANIZED RESEARCH
In such a state of confusion i t is fitting that we turn to those of our present generation who, through broader contacts, unquestioned achievement in scientific research, and sincere interest in the relationship of future research to the welfare of the human race, are qualified to speak. In January of this year, Doctor Arthur Compton, the retiring president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated [Science, 99,25(1944)l: "Perhaps the most significant changein thelife built by science and technology will be the increased organization of people into larger groups concerned with performing a common task. People will become more specialized and consequently will become more dependent upon each other."
Even more recently Doctor Conant, president of Harvard University, has stated [Science, 99,93 (1944)l:
. . . a major sbsre 01 hot h advanring and foaering philosophy sill be the rcsponsihility of the univrrritim i n the ycnrs ahead. The exceptional mall turnz the untrpcrt~dcorner i n w a y s which cannot be foreseen. No one can designate the targets in advance. This fact makes difficult the organization of research even in applied fields. . . . For him neither wealth nor power; neither the happiness which comes from contributingimmediately to the public welfare; nor the exhilaration of being one of the builders of an expanding industrial age. His ambition will be merely to seek the truth with all the skill and power at his command. This he will do humbly and yet with joy and pride. For without exalting his calling above that of others, he may nevertheless hope that from his labors will issue something that the world may not willingly Let die." "
began his academic preparation for research in a mental environment suffused with the thought that facts are their own excuse for being and with the equally firm conviction that "no fact is unmeaning-certain to find its place, sometime, somewhere, like the last word in a puzzle." With his laboratory on one band and the library on the other, he spent many years in the blissful state of fact-finding. Through temperament and training, therefore, his approach to a given problem is simple and straightforward. If a task is presented in a more or less unorganized state, he quietly sorts over its various aspects until it is clearly defined. His 6rst procedures are rarely highly technical. He is more than likely to depend upon his senses of smell, taste, and touch. As the investigation continues, his intensive concentration often renders him amusingly oblivious to surrounding circumstances. He is not even seriously affected by opposition and indifference in his associates. He is primarily interested in his problem, and the persistent opposition and indifference which the problem itself offersto his efforts to solve it usually command his entire attention. And yet, i t is a matter of record that this type of individual, by these procedures, has solved the most profound problems in all of the succeeding generations of research workers. How does such an individual function in the modern successful organized research group? In order to answer this we must consider more carefully the organized group itself. EVOLUTION OF ORGANIZED GROUP RESEARCH
The present social upheaval has brought about the transfer of many workers to laboratories where their efforts are directed exclusively toward the war effort. This rapid movement may tend to obscure another more gradual migration which has been in progress for more than two decades. The tendency toward greater application of scientific discoveries was evidenced in the Past experience and our awareness of current trends development of the Reichsanstalt in Germany during will enable every one of us to confirm the accuracy of the latter part of the 19th century. Before the fust these two conceptions. The group research described World War the National Physical Laboratory in Great by Doctor Compton is with us-apparently to stayBritain, the Bureau of Standards in the United States, as a result of its contribution to both speed and effi- and the Laboratoire Central d'Electricit6 in France ciency in investigational activities. On the other hand, were in existence. Discoveries which were made in Doctor Conant's pattern for individual research deals these institutions, and in many technical colleges orwith essentials, as we who are engaged in research know ganized during the same period, found ready applicathem. An attempt to make use of both of these ideas tion in industry. Industrialists recognized the value of in visualizing future developments in research, how- the more accurate standardization of their commodities ever, would seem to necessitate either the assumption and established "testing laboratories" in their own that the members of Doctor Compton's research groups plants. are, and will continue to be, individuals such as have The successes of these ventures were not ends in been described by Doctor Couant, or that, in the de- themselves. From the accumulated data and experivelopment of modern research organizations, new types ence gradually emerged the realization that the financof individual workers have been or will be evolved. It ing of the production of scientific facts may be a sound follows that if we are to evaluate the individual research investment. Industrial fellowships were established in worker both in independent and in group research, we large numbers in our colleges and universities. The must have the type clearly in mind. Mellon Institute was founded to further facilitate the application of scientific discoveries. In short, while inCHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH WORKER dustrialists of the past generation created environments The individual research worker of our generation for group research, such as the Rockefeller Foundation
and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, industrialists of the present generation are erecting research laboratories where they may deal diectlywith the problems peculiar to their own raw materials and industrial procedures. Within the last few years we have witnessed the erection of four government regional laboratories where, likewise, research is carried on upon an almost unprecedented scale.
ity, the devotion to routine duties, and even the alertness so necessary to obse~ation,analysis, and correct interpretation are compromised to an alarming degree. The importance of assuring more widespread success in group research endeavor justifies any attempt to analyze these failures. The procedures followed in organizing such laboratories have been so varied, however, that snch a task is complex.
SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZED GROUP RESEARCH
APPARATUS VS. PROBLEM SOLUTION
What of our individual research worker in this variety of new research environments, and of the procedures which we have believed to be so important for the success of his undertakings? In a few successful groups with which it has been my privilege to come into contact, there have been no apparent differences from the typical research worker of the past and his methods of procedure. For example, a new organic compound is prepared. Its existence suggests the possibility of other related compounds. Its usefulness justifies attempts to prepare them. A group of workers is assembled to carry out the extensive research involved, to make use of the assembled equipment and thus avoid unnecessary and costly dnplication, and to have the benefit of the advice of the chemist who made the original synthesis. While many highly specialized techniques may be involved, each worker is thoroughly cognizant of the problem as a whole. The members of the group work together for the purpose of solving the problems and their highest reward is the realization that their problems are successfully solved. In the research atmosphere which they create through their united efforts, the apparatus itself seems to catch the spirit of their endeavor and to reward their efforts with measurements of accuracy and precision. Surely snch an organization has augmented the finest traditions of research and has not detracted from them in any degree! Although such organized groups are comparatively rare, they are exceedingly productive and this fact should encourage us to believe that, in current trends toward more highly organized group research, those with characteristics such as these will represent the final product in evolution. If our observations are correct, we may conclude, therefore, that with dl of the stress and strain of this revolutionary period, the characteristics of the individual research worker have remained much the same; that, in certain successfully organized research groups, these characteristics are retained by the members of the group; and that their effectiveness in fact finding is increased, not thwarted, by the unified endeavor.
One condition seems to exist in all laboratories which have failed to obtain the highest returns from organized group research. The problem has been shifted from its necessary position of primary importance. The research workers are as a troupe of skilled actors without a coherent play. Under these conditions the activities may take the most unexpected forms. Some groups turn toward lavish expenditures for equipment. In this case the end result may be either a museum of scientific apparatus, or a perpetual exhibition of the operation of elaborate instruments for the enlightenment and entertainment of those who are unable to buy them. There is probably no more saddening sight in the list of activities carried on in the name of research than that of a well-trained operator of an instrument, searching a t random for material with which t6 display his machine; unless perhaps it is that of the individual who, confronted with a simple problem, gathers together with great effort the available thermostats, electric wire, photoelectric cells, and automatic recorders, assembling them in order to make indirect measurements which could have been made directly, and often more accurately, with immediately available apparatus. Such glorificationof research equipment is possibly a phase of the more general enthusiasm for machines in a "Machine Age." It is unquestionably a factor with which we must deal in attempting to maintain high standards of research. Group research has as one of its important assets the provision of good equipment not commonly available to the independent worker. The apparatus, however, must be kept in the position of a means to an end-the end the solution of problems. It mnst not be permitted to make the research worker its slave. Conditions such as we have described serve to remind us that a fine research spirit and creative endeavor are often to be found in the most humble surroundings.
UNSUCCESSFUL ORGANIZED GROUP RESEARCH
It is with regret that I mnst emphasize, by repetition, the fact that such successful organized group research is comparatively rare. A very large number of laboratories now in operation have failed to capture and hold within their walls this true spirit of investigation. In them we find that the directness, the simplic-
DEPARTMENTALIZATION VS. PROBLEM SOLUTION
As organized research groups become larger, they necessarily become departmentalized. The departments, in turn, may represent a wide variety of techniques. Each department maintains its formal relationship to the parent organization through executive officers,carries on the work falling within the scope of its staff and faalities, and, in addition, may also have a considerable burden in the form of maintaining interdepartmental relationships. Theoretically, such secondary units within an organized research group facilitate the actual experimental work and, in some in-
stances, they do function in this way. In other cases they seem to augment the complexities of group organization instead of simplifying them, and thus produce distractions which prevent concentration upon the problems in hand. These complexities often operate to erect a barrier between the problem and the investigator and thus prevent the direct approach so necessary to its proper solution. In its most serious form this organization may assume something of a military aspect and, at this juncture, we may have the advent of one of the most sinister enemies of productive research. I refer to the destructive power of intimidation which strikes periodically here and there, always dulling the keen edge of investigational ability. Those who thoughtlessly intimidate should remember that the inner urge to search, analyze, compare, and perfect is a harder taskmaster than any yet known to man. When these inner lashings are supplemented by the lashings of intimidation, the result is frequently beyond the limits of human endurance. More often, however, as the lashings of intimidation increase in intensity, those within gradually subside and we have in the place of a free, creative worker, a research automaton. In current terminology he is called a "yes man." These are but two of the conditions in our current organized research laboratories which would seem to have helped to bring about their failure to maintain high standards of research. In these specific instances we may conclude that when the useful device becomes an end in itself the research problem is neglected and the experimenter becomes its slave; and that the departmentalization of research groups often may defeat the very purpose for which they were formed-eventually hampering the work which they were created to promote. CONCLUSIONS
In this period of social unrest, those of us whose energies are not used in actual combat have added to our daily tasks the careful consideration of how we may be helpful in the difficult task of reconstruction after the war. It would seem to be unlikely that many of us will be able to contribute through pondering over the general aspects of the problems. We shall probably accomplish more by planning, as constructively as our understanding and opportunities will permit, in the fields of our immediate endeavor. At present our scientific laboratories throughout the land have the diminished but constant supply of re-
cruits from the academic front; later we shall have, in addition, the veterans from the battle front. The task of "keeping the house in order" rests with those of us who are on active research duty. While it is the fervent wish of all of us that these and many other problems which are confronting us in this fourth decade of the 20th century had never come to pass, we cannot escape their consequences; nor can we take lightly the responsibility of maintaining the heritage of free inquiry which was ours in the field of scientific research. Doctor Conant reminds us that history shows that it is not only modem totalitarian societies which put learning into a straight jacket, and recalls Gibbon's classic description of the highly stratified society of Byzantium: "They held in their lifeless hand the riches of their fathers. without inheriting the spirit which had created the sacred patrimony: they read, they praised, they compiled, but their languid souls seemed alike incapable of thought and action. In the revolution of ten centuries, not a single discovery was made to exalt the dignity and promote the happiness of mankind."
If the fortunes of war continue to favor us it will be but a short time until our daily work will be again upon a peacetime basis. Through this important period of reconstruction, may our vision be unclouded by the complexities of the rapidly changing order in research. May we remember that if the vigor of research activity is to be maintained, our interest in the problem must hold the place of primary importance and that when this interest is shifted, our research efforts are unorganized and, in this state, are doomed to failure. May we have with us constantly the realization that in the search for truth there is no place for compromise and expediency; and that for the adoption of such measures neither the research workers of the past nor those of the present will be excused. May we be given the opportunity to build for the women chemists of the coming generations an environment in which the pursuit of knowledge may continue; and may we look forward hopefully to the time when, in the course of their experiments, their findiigs may break away from the existing scheme of organized thought, and their problein appear in the unbelievable state of a tail wagging a dog. Unorganized, it may seem, but only momentarily; for the realization will soon follow that the new conception is a part of another and perhaps greater scheme of interdependent parts of which we have not dreamed.
