|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 9
The National Goal
OCR for page 10
OCR for page 11
Improving the U.S. Position
in International Industrial
Competitiveness
GEORGE A. KEYWORTH II
People who have heard me speak on the subject of the National Science
Foundation's Engineering Research Centers program know how strong
my commitment to the concept is, and how much I look forward to the
testing of the concept that is beginning now. The people connected with
the first six Centers are to be congratulated. The good news is that they
have survived what may have been the toughest grant competition in the
NSF's history. The bad news is that they now have to do all those things
they promised in the proposals. Actually, I would be disappointed if their
new experiences didn't force them to diverge from those plans very quickly,
because they are traveling where no one has gone before. They are trying
to adapt institutions steeped in tradition to rapid changes in the world of
science and technology and in the way those changes are transferred to
industry. They are going to have to learn and teach the rest of us as
they progress.
As someone with a deep interest in the Engineering Research Centers
(ERCs), I will try to describe the Centers in the broader context of Amer-
ican industrial competitiveness and of the kinds of resources we have to
mobilize to be successful. To set the stage, I want to share a recent
experience. The occasion was a conference of delegations from two dozen
economically advanced nations who were invited to Venice by the Italian
prime minister to discuss the relationship between technology and em-
ployment. The event was spurred in part by the growing divergence be-
tween the economies of Europe and those of countries, like the United
States and Japan, that have been aggressive in taking advantage of new
technologies. The European nations have struggled just to maintain the
11
OCR for page 12
12
IMPROVING THE U.S. POSITION
same number of jobs for nearly 15 years. During that same time in the
United States we have created 26 million new jobs. Not surprisingly, then,
most of Europe today is faced with massive unemployment, with problems
so severe that some countries now talk about entire generations of young
people who will never find jobs.
One would have expected the European nations to be curious, if not
eager, to learn from dynamic economies elsewhere. Yet I came away from
that conference very disturbed by what I interpreted as an ingrained re-
sistance to change among many of the European leaders who were there.
I was amazed at the number of European officials who proposed that the
way to create jobs was to shorten the workweek so that four people might
be able to do the work of three. That's hardly what I would call innovation.
Others insisted that their high priorities were to provide either what they
called "humane" employment, accommodating the life-styles to which
the workers have become accustomed, or guaranteed financial support for
a comfortable life of unemployment. While they all seem to understand
the need to use technology to develop new industries and modernize old
ones, when it came to considering actions many of them saw technology
as a threat rather than an opportunity. In the true "Europessimist" sense,
they could see only the possibility of jobs being eliminated by new tech-
nology and productivity improvements, never the jobs that would be cre-
ated. Not surprisingly, one of my favorite words, "competitiveness,"
rarely crept into the discussion; it was as if competition simply were not
an element of the industrial world.
As we know, competitiveness is a key word where economies are
growing. One of the points I tried to make at the conference was that
neither world nor domestic trade is a zero-sum game. Technological ad-
vances, by increasing the productivity of both labor and resources, create
and enlarge markets. In other words, it is not simply a matter of cutting
the pie differently; technological advances can make the pie larger. To
illustrate this point I cited the example of the personal computer. Just four
years ago the market for personal computers was still fairly small. Since
then IBM has entered the market, and IBM alone will sell almost $7 billion
in personal computers worldwide this year. Yet more than half the parts
in the IBM PC are manufactured in other countries and imported to the
United States. So in spite of how unexceptional those transactions may
appear in light of trade balances, all the countries whose industries are
involved in the new enterprise benefit from expanded employment.
I may not have made many new friends when I pointed out to the
Europeans that it looks odd for them, with their strong industrial, tech-
nological, and educational bases, to be wringing their hands in dismay
while at the same time newly industrializing nations, especially in the Far
East, are building new technology infrastructures from scratch and be
OCR for page 13
GEORGE A. KEYWORTH II
13
coming formidable competitors in carefully chosen niches of the world's
industrial market. Considering these emerging industries, such as Korean
steel, Taiwanese electronics, and Indonesian aircraft, it is beyond me how
already well-established European (or American) industries, with their
expertise and experience, can argue that they operate at a competitive
disadvantage. This is the argument we would expect from countries trying
to break into a market strongly dominated by established industrial nations.
The lesson I would draw from these observations is that the most
important determinant of industrial success these days is a willingness to
grasp the opportunities offered by changing technology. I would add that
even strong national R&D commitments, as necessary as they are, must
still be supplemented by competitive spirit.
I would have been even more depressed at the contrast between Europe
and United States in 1985 if I had not reminded myself that societies can
become energized with a desire to change and to compete. In the United
States we have certainly responded positively to the industrial and tech-
nological challenges of the past generation. Admittedly, at the start of this
decade we suffered some confusion over the nature of our new compe-
tition. Our experience of relatively easy market domination in the past
had not prepared us for our new role.
This experience, I'm convinced, will also be positive in the long run,
because it is forcing us to reexamine and reaffirm the principles of our
economy, and it is forcing us to recognize how much we had dulled our
initiative by taking our industrial strengths for granted. Today we not only
have a more realistic view of our competition; we also have a more realistic
view of our significant capacity to compete. To the extent that one can
characterize a national mood, I would say that the American people and
American industry are more optimistic today than they've been in years,
and that they are looking forward to a healthy economic future.
One example is worth sharing. In March 1985, at a small lunch that
President Reagan had with some leaders of American high technology,
one of the guests reached into his pocket and pulled out a wafer just off
a new manufacturing production line for 1-megabit RAM chips. In dis-
playing the chip this guest was making two points. First, he reminded us
that only four years ago many people were ready to dismiss American
manufacturing of RAM chips because the Japanese had presumably cap-
tured the future markets with their then-advanced 64K RAMs. The guest
wanted to remind us that listening to pessimists can be very bad business
practice. Fortunately, his company and others had confidence in their
abilities and, clearly, had bounced back.
This man was also pointing out the tremendous rate of growth in one
particular kind of microelectronics technology. In less than a decade we
went from 2 kilobits to 1 megabit. The 4-megabit chip isn't far over the
OCR for page 14
14
IMPROVING THE U.S. POSITION
horizon, and I expect to see a 64-megabit chip within my own working
lifetime. However, I don't think there is anyone who knows how we are
going to use memory devices of that incredible capacity. In fact, the big
chips that industry is producing are already stimulating us to rethink the
ways we process and use information, leading us right back to basic
research. As a result of these industrial advances, we are now investigating
entirely new kinds of computing and data-processing technologies. Aca-
demic researchers are already beginning to explore the new computer
architectures, software, and mathematics that these industrial advances
point to. Today's computer, which has been evolving for four decades,
may become a thing of the past. Meanwhile, the rate of change in these
areas is breaking down traditional barriers between industry and basic
research laboratories barriers that have impeded progress for too long.
This removal of barriers lies at the heart of the new Engineering Research
Centers.
A few months ago the President's Commission on Industrial Compet-
itiveness completed its 18-month-long analysis of what we have to do as
a nation to enable our industries to compete effectively in world markets.
One of the points I found especially interesting was the conclusion by this
group, which was composed primarily of industrial leaders, that the United
States has only two competitive advantages in today' s international market
of low-cost labor, overvalued dollars, high interest rates, and Byzantine
trade regulations. Those two advantages are our scientific and technical
knowledge base and our talent base.
While the conclusion that knowledge and talent are important American
industrial advantages is hardly surprising, I think that all of us on the
Commission were surprised to find that they were of such paramount
importance. As a consequence, one of the Commission's major conclu-
sions was to endorse the strong and increasing commitment to R&D over
the past five years by both industry and the federal government; in addition,
the Commission urged creation of "a solid foundation of science and
technology that is relevant to commercial uses."
This sounds very much like the point of the Engineering Research
Centers. The ERCs may be a preview of new mechanisms to take advan-
tage of the changing relationships between the laboratory and the factory.
Over the next few years the ERCs will be helping us to learn a lot about
how to improve something we have never paid too much attention to
before: the ways universities and industry can cooperate-not just to speed
the flow of new knowledge into applications, although that is a major
objective, but also to encourage universities to take advantage of industrial
expertise in thinking about academic research directions and educational
. .
O Electives.
OCR for page 15
GEORGE A. KEYWORTH II
15
Over the past few years many people have concluded that notwithstand-
ing the remarkable successes of American universities in advancing knowl-
edge in science, their structure is not as well suited to the challenges posed
by today's industrial opportunities. The narrow approach to research, in
which studies are generally confined to highly specialized subdisciplines,
needs to be joined with broader perspectives.
The overwhelming response of the universities themselves to this new
program there were proposals from virtually every engineering and re-
search university in the country reveals what I can only interpret as
tremendous enthusiasm for breaking out of some of the old molds of
education and research, an impression intensified by my observation of
the many people present at the symposium. The establishment of what
are in effect campus institutes where academic and industrial scientists
and engineers can work together on the kinds of technical problems now
being generated by modern industry may mark a new path for science and
engineering education and research. One of the most important products
of the ERCs will be the students, who will emerge with the broad technical
skills that will be needed in tomorrow's industrial world.
To industrial representatives interested in the Centers I can offer as-
surances, on behalf of the President and his budget advisers, that they
will be welcomed as financial partners in this enterprise. But in all seri-
ousness, what is far more important is the enthusiasm of industrialists,
their participation, and their commitment to having an impact on how
these Centers evolve.
To appreciate why this is important we should consider the origins of
the Centers. The idea surfaced in a presentation to my office on the subject
of computers in design and manufacturing, made by the Committee on
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP).* The presentation
brought home to all of us how radically the role of the engineer will change
in light of the tremendous information-processing capabilities that are
emerging, such as that 1-megabit RAM chip. We realized, too, that the
example of information technology, while perhaps the best known, was
only one of many rapidly changing fields that will change engineering.
After that presentation we were convinced that we should be doing more
to help integrate engineering practice and training with these new areas
of technology and science, and that our future industrial successes were
going to depend on the availability of different kinds of engineers than
Hose who had been successful in the past. We turned to the National
Academy of Engineering (NAE), which quickly assembled a group to
*COSEPUP is a joint committee of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and
the Institute of Medicine.
OCR for page 16
16
IMPROVING THE U.S. POSITION
suggest new mechanisms through which the National Science Foundation
and universities could respond. In both the COSEPUP panel and the NAE
group engineers from industry were full and eager participants. The pro-
gram that emerged has been strongly influenced by industry, so the Centers
should be prepared for fruitful interactions there.
This program is a superb example of what we can do together. Some
of the general goals guiding government actions to capitalize on our knowl-
edge and talent can be briefly summarized.
First, over the past four years our government has reversed its priorities
in order to support the generation of knowledge and talent, rather than
the development of specific technologies. Government does not have the
ability to guide the development of competitive new industrial technolo-
gies. It simply cannot respond rapidly enough to change. Industry itself
is far better prepared to make the necessary decisions, and also to make
the necessary investments in new technologies to meet demands. On the
other hand, support for basic research and for training students is properly
the government's responsibility, because both those efforts build the
knowledge and talent base.
In 1981 technology development claimed the largest fraction of U.S.
government support for research and development, while support for basic
research had the smallest fraction. By 1984 those priorities had been
reversed-the result of a nearly 60 percent rise in government funding
for basic research from 1981 to 1985. Even though federal budgets have
been tightly constrained, we never considered it a luxury to allocate re-
sources to such fields as mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering,
and the biological sciences. These investments in pioneering research will
lead to tomorrow's new technologies and to tomorrow's economic strength.
Second, we believe government has a responsibility to help universities
create the environment needed to be in the forefront of basic research and
the education of new technical talent. Our challenge today, reflected in
the new Engineering Research Centers, is to sustain creativity and inno-
vation while reducing the barriers between the pursuit of knowledge and
the pursuit of productivity.
One major step we have taken to meet this challenge has been to provide
such large increases in government support for basic research in univer-
sities. We have also increased funding to replace outdated research equip-
ment, improved the access of university researchers and their students to
supercomputers, and, together with industry, created special programs to
attract the best young engineers and scientists to teaching and research
. . . .
careers In universities.
I have already discussed government's third major responsibility: find-
ing better ways to stimulate the flow of ideas, expertise, and people among
our extensive government research laboratories, the universities, and in
OCR for page 17
GEORGE A. KEYWORTH II
17
dustry. Arrangements like the ERCs are good examples of how we can
do that.
Finally, the fourth goal of government for science and technology is to
be more alert to emerging technological opportunities and to make sure
that we develop the best knowledge and talent base for industry to draw
on. In the past our government has not always paid sufficient attention to
the opportunities for doing this, and some opportunities have been lost.
Lost opportunities in today's highly competitive world can be very ex-
pensive. For example, over the years our federal government has spent
billions of dollars on the molecular biology that made possible today's
biotechnology industry. But by focusing so intently on medical applica-
tions we may be failing to develop similarly far-reaching applications in
agriculture, and even in manufacturing. In the United States, as in many
other countries, there is a real danger of letting others assume industrial
leadership in profitable new fields of technology, even though we have a
head start through immense investments in the research which has estab-
lished those fields.
Returning to my earlier anecdote, I wish I could have transported my
fellow delegates from Venice to the ERC symposium. I think they would
have seen and appreciated the kinds of attitudes and kinds of steps one
has to take to create an atmosphere for industrial competition and for
economic growth.
A second anecdote, which may be well known, is nevertheless worth
repeating. Recently David Packard, a man I consider to be one of our
great Americans, observed to me that there are some very close parallels
between success in industry and success in professional sports. He said
that three factors determine these successes. One is the technical skills of
individuals. Nevertheless, basic skills are essentially evenly distributed
among teams, as they are among competing companies. So the other two
factors make the difference in the outcome of competition. One is the
individuals' zeal to win, and the other is how well they work together as
a team. Few people have shown more successfully than he how those
traits can be mobilized in industry, so I'm inclined to take his observation
seriously. Happily, in the past few years we have seen a strong rejuvenation
of that zeal to win in America, a reaction to the international pressures
that we have felt on all sides.
My object in relating this story is to reinforce two points. First, we
cannot play the industrial game unless we have the technical skills and
the zeal to surpass our competitors, and that brings us back again to the
need for a strong basic research environment, the spawning ground for
ideas and talent. Second, we need better teamwork. We need to continue
building cooperation and broad support for science and technology not
just between the administration and the Congress, but between academia
OCR for page 18
18
IMPROVING THE U.S. POSITION
and industry too with all accepting responsibility for making sure we
nurture those technical skills and translate them into practice.
We have an exciting opportunity before us in the Engineering Research
Centers. I want to put on record my strong support for what is being
attempted. I hope to have opportunities over the next few years to follow
their progress and celebrate their success.
DISCUSSION
A number of symposium participants from universities and industry
asked questions relating to international competitiveness and the role of
the ERCs. Regarding the intensification and expansion of Japan's activity
in the semiconductor field, Dr. Keyworth expressed optimism about the
future of American industry. Far from ignoring Japanese competition, he
said, "America is rising to the competition in a very powerful and vital
manner." Although capital costs and other factors will remain troublesome
for the United States, technology and talent are two areas where we
continue to lead. With regard to the obstructive business practices and
attitudes toward R&D and competitiveness that prevail among many of
our European allies, Dr. Keyworth was confident that the situation in the
United States is much healthier. In particular, he noted that the extent and
scope of the public debate on these issues is valuable and reassuring.
One questioner drew a comparison between the ERCs and the national
laboratories. Dr. Keyworth pointed out that while the similarities are
strong, the national laboratories have been concerned with meeting gov-
ernment requirements. He observed that the educational function of the
ERCs and their location at universities gives them a different and perhaps
more fundamental role.
Asked to project future funding levels and numbers of ERCs, Dr. Key-
worth made several notable comments. He predicted that the current budget
appropriation (for FY 1986) will be the difficult one for the ERCs to
weather, but that beyond that "we are going to see monumental growth
in them . . . we will be seeing units that exceed doubling for some time
to come." Based on the demand for such Centers, as evidenced by the
number and quality of proposals, Dr. Keyworth said he "would be very
surprised if we didn't see the Engineering Research Centers become some-
thing on the order of 10 percent of the National Science Foundation
[budget] in a very short period of time." He expressed his belief that the
concept of a joint university-industry multidisciplinary research institute
is long overdue, and that it will spread beyond the NSF to other agencies.
Thus, he said, "I refuse to accept 20 [Centers] as any kind of a top."
OCR for page 19
Engineering Research and
International Competitiveness
ROLAND W. SCHMITT
I believe that the main way in which engineering research and education
can contribute to the international competitive position of the United States
is by bridging and shortening the gap between the generation of knowledge
and its application in the marketplace.
Today fundamental scientific knowledge is one of our most effective
foes of foreign aid. Unfortunately, it happens to be foreign aid for our
rivals most notably the Japanese. They appreciate our research efforts
so much that their industries spend two-and-a-half times as much money
funding university and nonprofit research laboratories outside their na-
tion mainly in the United States as they spend on such laboratories
within their own country. And Japan pays us nearly a billion dollars more
for patent licenses and other forms of technology import than we pay
them. That favorable balance of trade in intellectual property more than
doubled in the 1970s, the decade when all other balance-of-payment fig-
ures with Japan were moving in the opposite direction.
Those numbers challenge an assumption that many of us make auto-
matically, which is that the answer to the problem of international com-
petitiveness is to do more and more of our own research. But Japan's
experience shows that it is possible to succeed in international technolog-
ical competition while relying on others for fundamental knowledge and
for really new ideas.
Obviously the Japanese example should not cause us to rush off and
blindly imitate their methods. But it should cause us to question our
accepted ideas about the relation of research to international competitive
strength. That questioning could have a variety of outcomes.
19
OCR for page 24
24 ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
is a gap between the apprenticeship of potential engineering researchers
and the role they will eventually fill. The Engineering Research Centers
have been designed to bridge those gaps. However, the notion of bridge-
building should not be interpreted in too limited a way. The principal
features of the Centers are often described as (1) industrial support,
(2) interdisciplinary scope, and (3) research aimed at utility. Those de-
scriptions are correct, but they are too narrow. They miss the essence.
Bridging Gaps Between Universities and Industry
First, the bridge established between universities and industry should
carry much more than money. As one university president put it, "Don't
just send us your money; send us your people who understand the critical
problems. Just sending money is not enough."
Sending problems does not mean sending applied research problems.
The idea is not to create Centers that are, in effect, job shops for industry.
The research at the Centers should be fundamental research in the areas
of engineering practice being taken on by industry that is to say, its aim
is not building robots for factories, but generating new understanding of
the fundamentals of robotic vision, touch, and control; not programming
expert systems for use in diagnostics or repair, but generating new un-
derstanding of knowledge representation, search and logic programming
techniques, heuristics, analogies, causality, and the other fundamentals
of artificial intelligence; not building biotechnology production facilities,
but developing unit operations concepts for biological processes.
The goal of industry-university interaction should be the establishment
of a two-way flow of information. From industry to universities should
flow an understanding of the barrier problems that practice is running up
against. From universities to industry should flow the knowledge and talent
needed to overcome the fundamental problems. The main point is not to
drive universities away from fundamental research, but to orient them
toward the areas of fundamental research that are most needed by industry.
Bridging Gaps Among Engineering Disciplines
Another important feature of the Engineering Research Centers is their
cross-disciplinary nature. But here again one should not tale a narrow
view. This is not just another interdisciplinary program; such programs
more often than not simply connote a collection of specialists in different
disciplines sharing office space or secretarial services. We need organi-
zations whose shape is dictated by the problem to be solved or the type
of result needed, rather than by the disciplines involved.
OCR for page 25
ROLAND W. SCHMIIT
25
I am under no illusions about the difficulty that this entails. What we
are really talking about is a clash of cultures: the problem-solving culture
of engineering practice versus the disciplinary culture of engineering sci-
ence. There will be resistance to change and suspicion of change, just as
there always is whenever cultures clash.
However, in my view such an interaction of cultures does not weaken
the disciplinary base; on the contrary, it strengthens it. Programs that
transcend disciplines can enhance disciplinary research by revitalizing
established fields and creating new ones. This is an area in which industrial
research and defense research, both of which inherently transcend disci-
plines, have led the way. Look, for example, at the role of a one-man
interdisciplinary project named Irving Langmuir and his enormous con-
tributions to surface chemistry and plasma physics, as well as to the
invention of better light bulbs and electronic tubes. Look at the contri-
butions of interdisciplinary teams at Bell Laboratories to the solid-state
sciences. And look at the revitalizing effect that highly goal-directed,
interdisciplinary World War II programs, such as the ones at the MIT
Radiation Laboratory, had on physics when the participants took their
new-found electronics skills back to their laboratories and started applying
them to nuclear magnetic resonance, high-energy physics, and radio as-
tronomy.
These examples illustrate my point: we should not be concerned that
traditional disciplinary research structures will be replaced by a new kind
of interdisciplinary work done at Engineering Research Centers. Instead,
we will see the emergence of new ways of doing research that will enrich
strong disciplines, revitalize dormant ones, and create some new ones.
Bridging Gaps Within the Innovation Process
Finally, and most difficult of all, we must not take too narrow a view
of the relation of engineering research to innovation. Instead we must seek
to embed engineering research in the total process of innovation a pro-
cess that extends from identifying the market all the way through pro-
duction, quality control, maintenance, and improvement of the first product
into a real winner.
These parts of the innovation process cannot be separated into watertight
compartments. The separation of marketing and engineering has killed
many promising innovations in their early stages. Typically, the marketing
people do not know enough about the future possibilities of the technology
to ask the right questions of the users, and the technologists do not know
enough about the users to ask the right questions of the technology. The
separation of engineering and manufacturing can be just as fatal. Typically,
OCR for page 26
26 ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
the engineer knows too little about the possible ways the product might
be manufactured to ask the right questions about the design, and the
manufacturing manager knows too little about the reasons behind the
design to ask the right questions about the production process.
As total-process awareness is built into the work of the Engineering
Research Centers it should reflect the spirit of an experiment carried out
by the late George Low, who was a prophet and pioneer of the Engineering
Research Center concept. George liked to tell about a teaching program
at his school, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), involving composite
materials. To train engineers, he believed, it was not enough just to expose
them to course work in the classroom and the laboratory; they also had
to experience the frustration and the excitement of putting advanced tech-
nology to work. In one particular project the students conceived of a
product a glider made of new composite materials-and then immersed
themselves in all the difficulties involved in "getting a product out the
back door." For the final exam they were apparently required to test-fly
the glider themselves! Fortunately, the glider flew. And so should the idea
behind it. The Engineering Research Centers should accustom students to
the idea that the engineer does research in order to do' not merely in order
to know.
SUMMARY
The most effective way for us to employ our national R&D effort to
improve the nation's international competitiveness is by narrowing the
gap between the generation of knowledge and the use of knowledge. The
place where the United States can gain additional advantage over our
world competitors is the middle ground between scientific research and
engineering-the domain of engineering research. In the past we have
relied on chance to produce engineering researchers, and have made no
concerted effort to create institutions deliberately designed to have the
primary focus on engineering research. We are now designing such in-
stitutions. We should design them to create links with industry that carry
not only money, but also the practical barrier problems that inspire re-
search. They should be fashioned so as to be not merely interdisciplinary,
but problem-oriented in a way that transcends disciplines. And finally,
they should be fashioned so as to imbue students and perhaps even
professors with an understanding of the true role of research within the
entire process of innovation.
DISCUSSION
Two questions from the audience suggested that problems of the com-
petitiveness of U.S. engineering are at least partly a result of shortcomings
OCR for page 27
ROLAND W. SCHMITT
27
of industry. In answering, Dr. Schmitt expressed his belief that industry
should not attempt to restrict publication and ownership of the results of
research that it funds, and that the best way to gain commercial advantage
from fundamental research is to be in a position to exploit it rapidly. He
disagreed with the assertion that industry generally has trouble under-
standing and interacting with university researchers, or capitalizing on
research with potential long-term relevance. At least in the case of large
corporate laboratories this is certainly not true, he said.
To the suggestion that some ERCs might be located outside universities,
he countered that universities must be the site of all Centers and that the
point of the ERCs is to foster the cross-disciplinary approach in engineering
research at universities. The focus on the problem rather than the discipline
can be instrumental in stimulating inventiveness within the culture of the
university.
OCR for page 28
Science and Engineering:
A Continuum
ERICH BLOCH
The complexity of the relations among science, engineering, and tech-
nology, and particularly the dependence of science on advances in engi-
neering, are not well understood by scientists or by most engineers.
Science, engineering, and technology are three different spheres of activ-
ity, each with its own perspective and dynamics, yet together they should
be seen as a whole, a system. Progress in each contributes to, and depends
on, progress in the others.
Consider first the fundamental differences among these three areas of
activity:
· There are many definitions of science, but for my present purpose I
use a simple one: Science is the process of investigating phenomena. This
process leads to a body of knowledge consisting of theory, concepts,
methods, and a set of results.
· Engineering is the process of investigating how to solve problems.
This process leads to a body of engineering knowledge consisting of
concepts, methods, data bases, and, frequently, physical expressions of
results such as inventions, products, and designs.
· Technological innovation is the process that leads to more effective
production and delivery of a new or significantly modified goods or ser-
vice. This process also creates a body of concepts, techniques, and data.
Some scientists believe that discoveries flowing from their work drive
engineering and technology. This is true enough in many cases, but ad-
vances in engineering and technology also drive science. The "straight
line" conceptual model with progress passing from science through
28
OCR for page 29
ERICH BLOCH
29
engineering to technology-is not only far too simple to describe the
complex interactions, it is simply incorrect. Instead, we should think of
a triangular model with science, engineering, and technology standing at
the three corners, and vectors depicting interactions running from each of
the points to the other two, always in both directions.
Differences in approach and outlook sometimes keep persons in one
area from fully respecting the work of persons in the other two areas and
from fully appreciating how much their own work depends on those others.
This gap in understanding, in approaches and languages, sometimes ap-
pears almost as broad as the gulf between the literary and technological
cultures that C. P. Snow talked about a quarter of a century ago.
Broadly speaking, scientists press for understanding, which they express
as concepts, theories, and predictions. They are fascinated by the universe
and its natural or social phenomena. They push forward the frontiers of
their fields by finding new ways to observe, qualify, describe, and relate
that part of the universe that interests them. These are clearly intellectual
and creative acts.
Engineers design, invent, shape new things, make new processes, and
relate concepts to solve particular problems or to uncover principles un-
derlying a class of problems. They also strive to understand the phenomena
they are dealing with, and attempt to develop the concepts and theories
required to underpin their work. These are also intellectual and creative
acts, no less so than in scientific research.
Furthermore, the existence of basic engineering questions and the pur-
suit of answers to them through research deny the common idea that
engineering is only applied science. Some of the topics addressed by
engineers are as fundamental to their fields as topics in basic science are
to scientists. For example, research on the underlying principles of design
theory, or on how to create new materials and use them in manufacturing,
or on how to scale up biological processes all raise very fundamental
issues.
The developers of technology, who are frequently trained engineers or
scientists although at times they are persons without much formal train-
ing turn designs or ideas into products or services that can be used by
many. They do this essentially by bringing to bear resources such as
money, time, manufacturing capability, and talented people. Some of the
designs, models, or ideas may have been around for a while before the
developers of the technology combined them with other ideas. In addition,
factors such as manufacturing costs, the potential market, and regulatory
matters are taken into account more explicitly in technology development
than in research.
The scientist who truly understands these differences in approach will
not look down upon engineering or technological innovation, just as the
OCR for page 30
30
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING: A CONTINUUM
research engineer or manufacturing engineer, though impatient for results,
should understand that quality scientific work must follow its own dy-
namics.
EXAMPLES OF THE CONTINUUM
The best-known examples of the flow of ideas across and among the
three areas of activity are the classic cases in which advances in scientific
thought did precede and drive technological developments. The work of
Townes and Schawlow in inventing the maser and laser is a good case in
point. The flow in this direction is the commonly accepted model.
There are two primary ways in which engineering and technology drive
science. First, the development of instruments has opened up whole new
areas of investigation and given the scientist ever more powerful forms
of observation and analysis. Second, many useful inventions have been
developed without the benefit of scientific work and in fact have led to
the development of principles or theory sometimes to whole new areas
~ .
0~ science.
Many specialized instruments are crucial to advancing research-we
all recognize how common lasers, computers, and other devices have
become in the laboratory. And there are many more examples of tech-
nology and engineering stimulating science than might be supposed. They
can be found throughout historical times right up to the present.
Some of the best-known historical examples are found in electronics,
optics, and mechanics. For instance, 40 years after Volta invented the
battery, Faraday finally explained how it worked. The technology of
photography was worked out by artists, craftsmen, and amateurs of every
sort decades before physicists and chemists understood photography's
underlying principles. Perkins's work on dyes in the 1850s led to exper-
iments in making flavorings and pharmaceuticals, which led in turn to the
theories underlying the chemistry of phenols and aldehydes.
From such beginnings much of modern physics, chemistry, and biology
emerged. However, we need not look that far back to see that the exper-
iments of engineers and technology developers drive advances in scientific
thought. Modern examples can be found in many areas.
The field of computer science not only arose in large part from attempts
to build computers, but continues to owe a great deal to technologists and
engineers and for that matter to thousands of amateurs who develop
programs and techniques as a hobby. Twice great technological devel-
opments in computers have stimulated the science of computing. The first
such case occurred here and in England as part of the World War II efforts
to break the German military code and to develop the atomic bomb. The
OCR for page 31
ERICH BLOCH
31
second came with the revolutionary shift to very large scale integration,
as miniaturization and related manufacturing processes brought with them
many questions about what was going on at a smaller scale: the behavior
of metals in thin layers; the surface interaction of silicon, polymers, and
metals; and many more phenomena. Research in these areas has led and
is leading to new scientific insights, theories, and discoveries.
The modern information era was initiated in 1948 when Claude Shannon
published two papers on a general mathematical theory of communications
systems. This work was based on his attempts and those of his colleagues
at Bell Laboratories to track down and control noise in telephone com-
munications channels. Shannon was an electrical engineer with a doctorate
in mathematics who drew on and contributed to knowledge in both fields
while solving a problem of great practical interest. Since then researchers
in mathematics, computer science, information science, electrical and
computer engineering, and other fields have built on his work.
Claude Shannon retired in 1972 after a long career at Bell Laboratories,
having also been a visiting professor at MIT, and having won many honors,
including the Medal of Honor of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (EKE) in 1966. I am delighted that the National Academy of
Engineering recognized his work, however belatedly, by admitting him
in 1984.
Among other modern examples to be found in many fields of research
I will cite catalysts, which have been used in many processes for some
time, with little understanding until recently of the science behind them;
and pharmaceuticals, some of which were used for years before neuro-
biologists arrived at the modern understanding of transmitters, receptors,
and blockers.
To return to my main point, then: science, engineering, and technology
can properly be viewed as a continuum, with ideas, techniques, and"
most important of all people moving from one point to another in every
direction.
CROSS-DISCIPLINARY WORK AND ERCs
How does this discussion of the continuum, the cross-boundary move-
ment, relate to the Engineering Research Centers? I believe that when we
look at the Centers in several years and evaluate their contributions we
will find new and very significant examples of the flow of ideas and people
back and forth across the disciplinary lines of science and engineering.
Research in general is moving toward greater integration, more interaction.
Where areas of research may converge, the Centers are designed to fa-
cilitate that convergence.
OCR for page 32
32
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING: ACO=INUUM
Such convergence is occurring not only among engineering disciplines,
but among scientific disciplines and between fields of science and engi-
neer~ng:
· Biotechnology is rapidly developing as a field, but defining what it
encompasses is not easy: several fields of biology, plus chemistry, chem-
ical engineering, and physics, at least. Their interaction demands a new
breed of engineers (or are they scientists?) who can synthesize ideas from,
and speak the languages of, these diverse disciplines.
· Materials research is another combination of several fields of science
and engineering: solid-state chemistry and physics, condensed-matter theory,
metallurgy, ceramics, and polymers are some of them.
· Some areas of computer science and computer engineering are so
closely allied that their boundaries are difficult to perceive. These fields
are in turn contributing to and being stimulated by-work in manufac-
turing systems, automation, design theory, artificial intelligence, cognitive
psychology, and even bioengineering.
As the National Research Council's 1985 Outlook on Science and Tech-
nology points out, the fact that researchers from different disciplines are
working together on common problems is not new, but the breadth of
their work together is new and so is its importance. Collaboration across
traditional disciplinary boundaries, if it is to work in academia, needs
strong nurturing and will require flexibility in attitudes as well as new
organizational forms.
In my view collaboration should not be seen as a threat to traditional
disciplines, as some people fear it to be. Work in individual fields will
progress in large part on the basis of discoveries made through work in
other fields, and as techniques and new instruments move from one field
to another. Continuing disciplinary strength is needed as well as continuing
cross-disciplinary strength. The threat I see is that university researchers
do not readily understand or accept the need for cross-disciplinary work
or for organizations that provide the opportunity to do such work.
Besides the involvement of scientists and engineers from many disci-
plines, the Centers have three other attributes that will cause their results
to be widely diffused. The first is the Centers' emphasis on involving
other academic institutions as affiliates. The second is their emphasis on
building links with industry. The third is their emphasis on improving the
teaching and practice of engineering.
With regard to involving other institutions, a college or university unable
to develop and house its own ERC can become an affiliate of one. The
institutions could exchange faculty members and students, and they might
establish computer and video links. The resulting Center with its affiliates
OCR for page 33
ERICH BLOCH
33
might be an even more productive entity, able to build on the strengths
of all its components.
Affiliations can occur in many ways: institutions can submit joint pro-
posals, as did two of the six new Centers (Maryland with Harvard, and
Delaware with Rutgers); or schools sharing the geographical or topical
area of a Center may join with it. I hope that as the Centers become
established we will see more of this kind of cooperation and interaction.
The Centers must develop industrial partners, as experience has shown.
The firms that get involved will benefit greatly from access to talented
students as well as the new knowledge from research. The university
researchers and students will be equally stimulated by the exchange of
ideas with their industry counterparts.
As the National Academy of Engineering's 1984 report on the Centers
states, each Center must assume a broad role in engineering education at
all levels.* This role entails explicit efforts to codify new knowledge
and to bring it to the classroom. Rebuilding the base of engineering
education through modernizing teaching materials, recognizing and train-
ing teachers, and giving students the experience of participating in research
is one of the most important outcomes that we can expect of the Centers.
All of us who have worked on the ERC program have very high ex-
pectations for the Centers. The Center directors and the people who will
work with them face some very difficult and interesting challenges.
Quality, not quantity, will be our guide in establishing the Centers.
Finally, those universities whose excellent proposals could not be funded
because of budgetary restrictions should be urged to work with industry
and with state and local governments to start Centers on their own, or to
propose a Center to another government agency. The ideas in these papers
can be used to improve proposals, regardless of whether they are eventually
submitted to the NSF. The nation and its research enterprise will be served
well by having successful and productive Engineering Research Centers,
whatever the source of their funding.
DISCUSSION
Questions to Mr. Bloch focused mainly on the need for new attitudes
toward and greater support for engineering. To a question regarding the
relative funding for science and engineering within the NSF, Mr. Bloch
replied that engineering had received one of the largest percentage in-
creases in the Foundation's FY 1986 budget. He pointed out, however,
that equality in dollars is not a good yardstick for comparison. Engineering
differs from science in a number of ways, one being that it is closer to
*Guidelines for Engineering Research Centers (1983).
OCR for page 34
34
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING: A CONTINUUM
industry and can therefore expect industry to contribute to its support.
Viewed in this light, the NSF is really a "leveraging point" for federal
dollars; both the ERCs and the Presidential Young Investigator Awards
are examples of programs that leverage federal support for engineering
by encouraging industry support.
Mr. Bloch agreed with an observation that engineering education has
lacked the practical, apprenticeship aspect because overall support for
research and teaching has been limited and engineering has not been given
high priority. He noted that the ERCs, as well as cooperative and joint
research endeavors among various industries and with universities, are
evidence of a "change in the cultures" of government, industry, and
academia with regard to engineering.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
university researchers
