J A M E S B. C O N A N T , President, Harvard
University,
Cambridge,
Mass,
If w e are fro keep the elements from the past that experience seems to have shown to be successful we must re-examine the roles of . . .
Scientists, Inventors, a n d Executives
T HJi farsighted policy of the management of t h e D u Pont Co. in regard to scientific research has h a d a beneficial influence directly and indirectly on the whole d e v e l o p m e n t of chemistry in the United States. All those who are concerned with the application of science to industry must, of course, a p p l a u d what has been done in W i l m i n g t o n in this century. But even those* academic people w h o arc interested only in theoretical chemistry— who raise their glasses to the chemical equivalent of t h e toast, " H e r e ' s to pure mathematics; m a y it never be applied,"— even the most chemically p u r e investigators must be grateful to the D u Pont Co. for the wise a n d g e n e r o u s support of academic chemists t h r o u g h o u t the country. Some of us h o l d the view that t h e advance of science is of t h e utmost importance because w e are deeply concerned with science as an ever-growing fabric of tacts and theories; others, because of the application of science to h u m a n welfare. I propose to e-xplore these t w o different approaches to a common goal—the advance of science—and relate both to government on t h e one h a n d and modern industry on the other. My story will start in Birmingham, England, in t h e 1780's and end in Wilmington, Del., in t h e 1950's. I introduce three characters as t h e prototypes of the scientist, the inventor, and the e x e c u t i v e Joseph Priestley, James W a t t , and Matthew Boulton. I will contrast their respective roles in the society of their day with that of t h e i r intellectual descendants in this c e n t u r v . And since t h e world is 2262
divided by a heavy iron curtain, my comparison must include a contrast b e t w e e n a l a n d of freedom and one under the rigid rule of a totalitarian philosophy that dominates both t h o u g h t and action. As one surveys the history of science a n d technology, t h e last third of the 18th century stands out as b e i n g a revolutionary period. I do not refer to die American Revolution nor to t h e F r e n c h Revolution, b u t rather to that rapid growth in industry w h i c h has come to b e known as the Industrial Revolution. I have also in mind t h e series of events so significant to all chemists t h a t t h e y a r e often designated t h e chemical revolution. The names of Priestley, Cavendish, and Lavoisier are associated with t h e discovery of oxygen, t h e composition of water, and t h e developm e n t of a clear t h e o r y of combustion. Priesdey, Cavendish, a n d Lavoisier w e r e all amateurs. T h a t is t o say none of them received any compensation either for his research activities or for teaching science. T h e first was a dissenting minister, t h e second a wealthy recluse, t h e third a F r e n c h m a n of affairs. In general, the great scientific a d v a n c e s of this period were made by a m a t e u r s as they had been from the 17th c e n t u r y on. Not until w e reach the second and t h i r d quarters of the 19th century do w e find that those who were most p r o m i n e n t in advancing science were devoting their e n t i r e time to scientific activities b y w h i c h they e a r n e d their living. T o d a y , t h e scientific a m a t e u r , in t h e sense that I am u s i n g the word, has all but disappeared. James W a t t was initially a lone inventor. C H E M I C A L
T h e story of his difficulties with the improvement of the N e w c o m e n steam engine is too familiar to warrant retelling. H e was a self-starting, i n d e p e n d e n t inventor, b u t if he h a d not been fortunate enough to join forces with a m a n of exceptional business skill, M a t t h e w Boulton, his mechanical ingenuity a n d scientific insight might well have proved of no avail. Without the businessman, the executive w h o was also an innovator, W a t t would not have been a key figure in t h e industrial revolution. T h e industrial revolution w a s in one respect like a chain reaction. Invention fed on invention. W a t t a n d Boulton, you may recall, turned to an inventive ironmaster, John Wilkinson, for the boring of t h e cylinders for their engine. And it is probably not too m u c h t o say that tlitsuccess of Watt's engine as compared to those of his predecessors and rivals was the consequence of an invention of Wilkinson—a new machine for t h e accurate boring of cannon. T h e n Wilkinson turned around and bought o n e of the n e w steam engines to operate t h e blast of h i s foundry furnaces a n d later t h e mechanical e q u i p ment. T h e iron industry and t h e use of steam progressed t o g e t h e r ; one invention enabled another to b e m a d e . As a consequence the age of iron and steam grew to maturity in E n g l a n d before the 18th century w a s over. T o g e t h e r with t h e a c c o m p a n y i n g changes in t h e textile industry and in transportation, we have t h e p h e n o m e n o n we called the Industrial Revolution. The impact of this revolution on the economic life of Great Britain proAND
ENGINEERING
NEWS
di iced social a n d political problems which a r c not yet solved. I n d e e d , it might be said a preoccupation with the grim aspect or. these problems p r o d u c e d in t h e 19th century t h e philosophy of Karl Marx. Thus t h e Soviet philosophy of today is iii a sense one rjroduct of the Industrial Revolution. So too is the atomic b o m b ; for it is the p r o d u c t of m o d e r n industry and the physical sciences. One may easily trace to the age of Priestley the beginnings of the chemistry and engineering that m a d e the M a n h a t t a n Project possible. So il you like to b l a m e the past, you may say the twin major threats to the continued prosperity of free men in this century are t h e fault of t h e 18th century. But then you would h a v e to credit the age ol Priestley, W a t t , and Boulton with all ol t h e benefits of m o d e m science and industry'· T h e t r u t h of the matter, it seems to m e , is s u m m e d u p in that phrase of Emerson's: " T h e r e is a crack in everything G-od has m a d e . " And today we are painfully a w a r e of two cracks in the foundation of t h a t world which came to light in G r e a t Britain 150 years ago. But I will not press these involved t h o u g h t s , w h i c h to some of you may seem fantastic, any further. For my purpose is t o consider the problems of how t h e present intellectual descendants of Priestley. W a t t , a n d Boulton are to get along tog e t h e r . N o w it ;>G h a p p e n e d that Priestley, W a t t , a n d Boulton were close friends. J o h n Wilkinson, the inventive ironmaster, was Priestley's brother-in-law; Josiah W e d g w o o d , t h e inventive potter w h o founded the great potteries, was likewise of this circle of scientists, inventors, a n d innovators w h o lived in or near Birmingh a m in t h e closing d e c a d e s of t h e 18th c e n t u r y . T h e y shared a common interest in scientific matters b u t , and this is imp o r t a n t , t h e technological advances of that t i m e were m a d e with little or no benefit of science. T h e element of theory, of scientific generalization was almost entirelylacking. H o w could it b e otherwise with chemistry or metallurgy? F o r remember, trie role of oxygen in combustion was in process of discovery, t h e composition of steel was u n k n o w n , t h e atomic theory only a speculative idea as it has been for generations, a n d heat w a s a caloric fluid. W e d g e w o o d revolutionized his pottery; Wilkinson vastly improved the m a n u f a c t u r e of cast iron by purely empirical p r o c e d u r e s . I n d e e d , t h e advances of technology, including the chemical and metallurgical technology of t h e entire 18th c e n t u r y a n d m u c h of t h e early 19th, w a s b y cut-and-try methods. T h e invention of t h e L e b l a n c soda process is a case in point. T h e Role of P u r e Empiricism To my m i n d , it is of importance to recognize that in the technical progress of e v e n the last 200 years pure empiricism h a s p l a y e d a tremendous role. It still plays an important part today. But it is equally important, I believe, to recognize t h e role of scientific ideas a n d theories in t h e a d v a n c e of the practical arts in t h e
past 100 \ ears, particularly in the past 50. In t h e changes in the chemical and metallurgical industries t h a t have taken place since the Industrial Revolution, both empiricism a n d theory have played their part, and still play their part today. I submit that if you go into the research laboratory of any chemical industry today and examine t h e work in progress, you will find a hlend of empiricism a n d of theory. F o r example, to the extent that conditions are controlled b y buffer solutions and p i I measurements, I would say one was operating with little empiricism. To the extent that a given concentration or temperature or presence of a certain metallic ion has been found by experience to give a good yield in t certain reaction, one is dealing with nearly as m u c h empiricism as is a skillful cook. T h e gradual lowering of the d e g r e e of empiricism in many industrial operations has gone handin-hand with m u c h highly successful empirical work. But t h e most successful penetration of theory into practice has occurred widiin the lifetime of many of us here. So m u c h so that in addressing popular audiences w e tend to speak of applied science as though all our operations were based on a d e q u a t e theoretical knowledge. We know better. T h e typical inventor was essentially an empiricist. Indeed, w e used sometimes to speak of t h e cut-and-try methods of experimentation as Edisonian methods. Therefore, as theory developed in physics and chemistry a n d penetrated into practice, as t h e degree of empiricism w a s red u c e d in one area after another, t h e inventor w a s b o u n d t o disappear. T o d a y the typical lone inventor of the 18th and 19di centuries h a s all but disappeared. In his place in the mid-20th century came the industrial research laboratory and departments of d e v e l o p m e n t engineering. T h e r e is n o need to underline the significance of t h e c h a n g e from the point of view of t h e public. I will not take the time to e n u m e r a t e t h e triumphs of applied chemistry, for example, of the past 20 years "which are the p r o d u c t not of empiricism hut of the application of theory to practice. T h e r e a r e several interesting points to be noted In connection with this transformation of the process of industrial innovation. T h e first is that t h e progress of the industrial arts has become linked closely to the a d v a n c e in theoretical science. Priestley, W a t t , Boulton, and W e d g w o o d were close friends interested in experimentation, b u t there was little or n o connection between t h e "philosophical experiments" of Priestley ( as he would h a v e called t h e m ) and the practical experimentation of t h e inventors. They were both manifestations of the same restless curiosity, if you like, but the time was not ripe for the sciences of physics and chemistry to influence industrial practice. Boulton, t h e executive, and Watt, the inventor, were interested in what Priestley w a s doing; W a t t even suggested an interpretation of some of Priestley's experiments that give him some claim to
V O L U M E
» JUNE
2 9,
NO.
23
»
-
»
4,
1951
have discovered the composition ot water. Yet as far as their work as inventors and innovators was concerned, Priestley, Cavendish, and Lavoisier might experiment or not. In contrast, consider the enormous amount of scientific knowledge which will be brought to bear on practical problems in one way or another in the new laboratories being dedicated. T h e Passing of the Amateur The second point is that the revolutionary advances in theoretical science were made very largely by amateurs. And clearly almost all the great advances in industry until this century were made by the independent inventor. These men have passed. They have no intellectual descendants. Will their 20th century equivalents—the professional scientist, the applied science laboratory, the engineering group—be able to carry on? Some ol you may be inclined to laugh at this question. W h y , of course, you will say. Look at what has happened in t h e past 30 years. You yourself have just spoken of the startling advances in applied chemistry. Look at the electrical industry; the new way of advancing science, pure and applied, is far better than t h e old. Perhaps; but I submit it is too soon to d r a w definite conclusions. There is such a thing as momentum in h u m a n affairs as well as in physics. And I submit that w e of the mid-20th century have b e e n moving forward to a considerable degree because of the momentum accumulated in the days of the amateur and the lone inventor. At all events, there is sufficient d o u b t about the ability of t h e n e w ways to be substituted for the old for us to examine t h e problem with some care. F e w would deny that it is relatively easy in science to fill in t h e details of a new area, once the frontier has been Lavoisier instructs young E . 1. du Pont in chemistry. A p a i n t i n g by F . W . W r i g h t in the Lavoisier Library at the D u Pont Experimental Station
2263
crossed. 'I hi trip i.il ex cut is turning tin unexpected corner. This it is not given t o most ol n.s to do. II \im want adxniiees in the ki.sie theories ol physics and chemistry in the future comparable to those of the List twi? centuries, then it would .seem essential that there continue to he people in .i position to turn unexpected corners. By definition the unexpected corner cannot h e turned by .my operation that is planned. T h e n are plenty ot recognized corners in sc-iemv. pun and applied, that have been turned by concerted attack mapped out ahead of time. That these operations will eont iiim- I have no doubt. But whether there will continue to be a favorable cultural atmosphere for the exceptional m a n with re.illy new ideas in science I h a v e some doubts. Such a m a n 1 h a w xenturcd to call the uncommitted investigator. Such a person was Priestley. Laxoisjer. Karaday. or 1'asteur (in his early years). They could investigatc what they pleased when the> pleased, break oH a research at any point. They were as Iree as the wind because they had no program except the evercluu;:4intf o n e in their own heads. Contrast such research men with the investigator today in a university or a research laboratory w h o is tied to a program, perhaps, ol h i s own making. In part because ol t h e vast capital investment in the equipment ( a cyclotron for example), in part because ol the source of hinds, he is morally b o u n d to carry through a project. This may h e in " p u r e " science, in basic research, o r for a definite practical object. That docs not matter; the contrast is between the uncommitted investigator on the one hand and the director of a research program o n the other. Indeed, t b e distinction I have just been making seems to m e to be more significant than the distinction between pure and applied research. Therefore, I carry over my analysis of the advance of theoretical science to the problem of the industrial research laboratory. For the inventor who has disappeared was like the scientific amateur a n uncommitted man. fie was guided entirely by his own ideas—and sometimes they were wild ones—veritable will-o'-the-wisps; like an old-time prospector he played a lone hand. The Progressive Approach Now t h e r e are always at least three ways of looking at drastic social changes. One is to say this is a clean break with the past; forget history, start afresh. Another is to say let us recognize the altered situation but try and keep the elements from t h e past that experience seems to have shown to be essential ingredients of a successful undertaking. Still a third is to say the change is bad, completely had, and nothing good can come of it. The last is the attitude of the reactionary, the second of the progressive, the first of the radical. It is not without its interest that as regards this altered situation of the scientist and inventor we can clearly see today these three attitudes exemplified, particularly the first and 2264
second. The radic.il approach in action is to be found in the Sox iet I'nion though seme proponents of almost the same point o{ \ :e\x tan be found in the iree nations. The progressixv approach is the one tor which I speak. The key man at this point in the- discussion is the third member ol my trio— the executive—the modern equivalent of Matthew Boulton. In a given area of industry he must organize a vast amount ol research —programmatic research. That goes without saying. But in the process I take it he must somehow continue to produce the equivalent ot the lone inxentnr. he must have some indix iduals in his outfit who will be almost fancy free. I don't propose to tell him how to do it. There max well be more than one successful method. I do venture to say, however, that society would be well advised to see t ) it that the technological situation is so loose-jointed that the skills of different groups in playing the role of inventor may be pitted against each other. Looking at the matter solely from the point of view of furthering technological advances, it would seem essential not to have a monolithic- structure, a close-knit national organization either in a practical art or in science. By and large, in spite of the heavy pressures driving academic men doxx'n the road of programmatic research, I think the American people will be wise enough to support the uncommitted investigator in science. I think there xvill be sufficient rivalry within most industries to ensure adequate explorations of \-arious procedures for keeping the spirit of invention at a high level. Whether this will result in as much progress in science and technology as in die recent past no one can sax-, but by and large I firmly expect what I have called the progressive attitude towards the new situation to prevail in the I'nited States. Cheat Britain and the E u r o p e a n continent are another story and I venture neither comments nor predictions. As to the other side of the Iron Curtain there can be no doubt. There you have a fullfledged acceptance of the radical point ot view about the altered nature of research and invention. With a blare of Marxist trumpets science is being p u t to work for the benefit of the "anti-bourgeois revolution/' The Soxdet interpretation of the philosophy known as "dialectical materialism" embraces not only politics and economics but every branch of knowledge. There is a party line in biology, in theoretical physics, even in philology! A leading Russian geneticist, a member of the Moscow Academy of Science, published just a year ago a defense of what has been going on in biology in Russia. His remarks are extremely revealing. The charge has been made, he says, that in the Soviet Union science no longer bears a "supranational character," the statement lias been made "that—a great scientificnation has repudiated the universal and supranational character of science." "This is not true." he declares, for "Soviet sciC H E M I C A L
ence nexer accepted these reactionary claims; it always eomhatted them. . . W e h a w openly declared," he goes on to say, "and continue to declare that science, and therefore Sox iet science, is a partisan science-, a class science. All talk about 'the supra-class" and 'supranational' character ol science is xvrbal nonsense." These quotations 1 can assure you are typical of xx hat is now being written bx scientists and scholars the other side ot the Iron Curtain. From the point ot xicxv ot 40 years ago this is an amazing dew l o p m e n t : it is as though the hour hand of the clock had jumped back before our eyes. The presuppositions ot the world ot science are repudiated officially by the Party that rules a mighty nation. Freedom of inquiry is not suppressed, rather, its premises are denied and ridiculed. L'nder such circumstances the equixalent of Matthew Boulton becomes ot course an official of the state1. The independent inxentor. the amateur scientist has not only disappeared but has left no recognizable descendants. T h e executives operate under an alleged mandate of society, but in reality are instruments of a highly disciplined party; at all events they control and manage science. Competition —a despised bourgeois idea—is eliminated: a monolithic structure takes its place. Science and society are welded together in a totally new pattern. T h e break with the past lias been completed. Can Such a System Succeed? Can such a system of science and technology be successful? For t h e short run, the answer must be yes. Just as you can organize, plan, and direct a concerted effort to turn the recognized corner in science, so too the whole science of a nation can be regimented for a push towards definite goals. W e must not underestimate the immediate technological power ot Russia. But for the long pull, the verdict of history may xvell be otherwise. Indeed, as a student of the history of science I beliexe it must be so. Once t h e borrowed momentum of the science of t h e free world has been exhausted, I believe the progress of Soviet technology will almost stop. Barring a global war, which I believe is by no means inevitable, the younger members of this audience will live to see the outcome of a gigantic experiment. They will witness the result of t h e technological competition between the two rival solutions of the problem created by the lowered degree of empiricism in the industrial arts: the progressive solution on the one h a n d as exemplified by American industry and American universities, the radical solution of the fusion of society anci science in the Soviet Union on the other. W h e r e will the two systems stand, say in the year 1975? You gendemen who expect to live to see that day may write your prophecies as you see fit. I for one place my bet on freedom. I HI- ahove addrrss was delivered at a dinner in the Hotel *I>u Pont, Wilmington, Del., May 10, 1951. on the occasion of the dedication of the Dn Pont Co.'s expanded experimental station.
AND
ENGINEERING
NEWS
