mort@brl-bmd@sri-unix.UUCP (10/12/83)
From: Morton A. Hirschberg <mort@brl-bmd>
I have refrained from reflaming since I sent the initial
conference announcement on "Intelligent Systems and Machines."
First, the conference is not being sponsored by the US
Government. Second, many papers may be submitted by those
affected by the security release and it seemed necessary to
include this as part of the announcement. Third, I attended the
conference at Oakland earlier this year and it was a super
conference. Fourth, you may bite your nose to spite your face if
you as an individual do not want to submit a paper or attend but
you are not doing much service to those sponsoring the conference
who are true scientists by urging boycotts. Finally, below is a
little of my own philosophy.
I have rarely seen science or the application of science
(engineering) benefit anyone anywhere without an associated cost
(often called an investment). The costs are usually borne by the
investors and if the end product is a success then costs are
passed on to consumers. I can find few examples where
discoveries in science or in the name of science have not
benefited the discoverer and/or his heirs, or the investors.
Many of our early discoveries were made by men of considerable
wealth who could dally with theory and experimentation (and the
arts) and science using their own resources. We may have gained
a heritage but they gained a profit.
What seems to constitute a common heritage is either something
that has been around for so long that it is either in the public
domain or is a romanticized fiction (e.g. Paul Muni playing
Pasteur). Simultaneous discovery has been responsible for many
theories being in the public domain as well as leading to
products which were hotly contested in lawsuits. (e.g. did Bell
really invent the telephone or Edison the movie camera?)
Watson in his book "The Double Helix" gives a clear picture of
what a typical scientist may really be and it is not Arrowsmith.
I did not see Watson refuse his Noble because the radiologist did
not get a prize.
Government, and here for historical reasons we must also include
state and church, has always had a role in the sciences. That
role is one that governments can not always be proud of (Galileo,
Rachael Carson, Sakharov).
The manner in which the United States Government conducts
business gives great latitude to scientists and to investors.
When the US Government buys something it should be theirs just as
when you as an individual buy something. As such it is then the
purview of the US Government as to what to do with the product.
Note the US Government often buys with limited rights of
ownership and distribution.
It has been my observation having worked in private industry,
for a university, and now for the government that relations among
the three has not been optimal and in many cases not mutually
rewarding. This is a great concern of mine and many of my
colleagues. I would like a role in changing relations among the
three and do work toward that as a personal goal. This includes
not referring to academicians as eggheads or charlatans;
industrialists as grubby profiteers; and government employees as
empty-headed bureaucrats.
I recommend that young flamers try to maintain a little naivete
as they mature but not so much that they are ignorant of reality.
Every institution has its structure and by in large one works
within the structure to earn a living or are free to move on or
can work to change that structure. One possible change is for
the US Government to conduct business the way the the Japanese do
(at least in certain cases). Maybe AI is the place to start.
I also notice that mail on the net comes across much harsher
than it is intended to be. This can be overcome by being as
polite as possible and being more verbose. In addition, one can
read their mail more than once before flaming.
Mort