"Schuster had been to the Telecommunications Research Establishment dozens of times, but the place never ceased to fascinate him. TRE was a unique institution, and the Germans would never have been able to understand it. What would they have thought of its famous Sunday Soviets, where the problems of the week were thrashed out in discussions so democratic that the humblest lab technician had no scruples in telling a Nobel laureate that he was talking nonsense? In Germany, it would take weeks for the diffident correction to reach the Herr Doktor Professor; here, the feedback was almost instantaneous."
- "Glide Path," p. 96.
Incidentally, the paragraph illustrates the "liberal" origin of modern science, that I described a few weeks ago. As I see it, this attitude developed after Bacon and Newton. It was a product of Enlightenment philosophy, as was modern democracy. You can see how closely intertwined they are in this description of an institution in which no individual is privileged, and all ideas are given an equal hearing. By now, politically conservative people in Europe and the U.S. believe in this ideal as much as liberals do, but it originated in the liberal camp. To this day conservatives tend to respect authority and be happier with hierarchy than liberally minded people are. We need both kinds of people to run civilization. Conservatives are probably better at running factories and armies, whereas you want liberal, open minded people in a laboratory, with essentially nobody in charge.
The third great advance in science was to concentrate research on practical matters, industry, and profit. Newton thought of science as a kind of religion; a way to know God's mind. He was similar to the the ancient Mandarin and Greeks, with their traditions of disdain for practical, work-a-day problems, and getting one's hands dirty. He did not care much about society, or about the health and happiness of other people. For example, he invented the sextant, put it aside, and forgot about it. Since he was on the Longitude Board, he knew plenty about navigation, and he must have realized that the sextant would save thousands of lives and keep many sailors from going blind. A modern researcher with democratic ideals would consider it a moral duty to introduce and promote the sextant, but Newton decided to do alchemy instead. Even if he had found a way to turn lead into gold, it is hard to see how this would have benefited humanity much. Contrast his attitude to that of Franklin, who was 21 when Newton died. Franklin was an important scientist, although not in the same league as Newton. People were starting to make big money from research by the time he reached his prime, and the patent system was becoming effective. But Franklin was so steeped in Enlightenment philosophy, and so concerned with the greater public good, that he immediately made his discoveries free to the public. He could have made a fortune with lighting rods and the Franklin stove. People at the time were surprised he did not try to cash in on them. He was a canny businessman, he enjoyed wealth, and he never wore a hairshirt, but he decided that these inventions were so important, and so beneficial, that they should be propagated quickly, and the public good outweighed profit in these cases. His generosity did not hurt his public image or close off profit-making opportunities, a fact that o-u inventors should think about carefully.
Jefferson appreciated the practical uses of science, but he did not fully appreciate the rising tide of industrialism until the last decades of his life, when he realized that the U.S. would either build factories or it would remain weak and dependent on England indefinitely. He trained his slaves to manufacture nails, which is not exactly the modern, capitalist approach.
- Jed
