Next: The Even More Certain Millennium

Citation

Mihram, D. and Arthur Mihram, G. (2000), "Next: The Even More Certain Millennium", Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 17 No. 9. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhtn.2000.23917iac.003

Next: The Even More Certain Millennium

Danielle Mihram and G. Arthur Mihram

The Year 2000 Annual Meeting (the 166th) and Science Innovation Exposition [AMSIE 2000] was conducted 17-22 February 2000 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) at the Omni Shoreham and adjacent Marriott Wardman Park Hotels in Washington, DC. Over 2,000 participants attended the meeting, in which about 113 subject-specific three-hour Symposia, each with four or five authors making a presentation, were conducted in addition to the five plenary addresses and about 23 topical lectures, the last set being typically held in concurrent pairs or triples through the meeting's five days http://www.aaas.org/meetings/2000/program.htm

Unfortunately, the theme of the overall meeting was "Science in an uncertain millennium," which too many interpret as a reference to the upcoming one, actually beginning 1 January 2001. Since we now know, with a great deal of certainty, how the scientific method is successfully conducted, one could only hope that this year's meeting's theme refers to the (present) millennium, the one just this year terminating, so that we can continue to maintain the intrinsically hopeful nature of science itself: to provide more and more certainty in our understanding of nature.

A Sandwich: One Surrounded by the Scientific Method

It was therefore intriguing, and initially perceived as inspiring, to see that this year's Meeting was to begin and to end with lectures and symposia whose titles dealt with the Scientific Method. If this pair, beginning (Information Technologies and the Future of Scientific Method, Lanier) and end (Science and Technology Roadmaps, Bloom and Darden), were viewed as slices of bread, the center was indeed composed of enticing materials, many of which addressed matters of direct concern to the technological impacts on libraries.

Indeed, several of the symposia and a few of the topical lectures centered on subjects of concern to the computer and tele-communicative technologies now prevalent in libraries. (Though we heard the following comment at the subsequently held Computers in Libraries 2000 Conference in Washington: "No longer is the Internet in the library; rather, the library is in the Internet!", one could have detected a hint of its near truth-content throughout AMSIE 2000.) We turn to these matters momentarily, but were a bit surprised to see that the AAAS had reserved one of its most intriguing symposia for the very last time slot of the meeting on Tuesday, 22 February.

This symposium (like the bottom slice of a sandwich), entitled Science and Technology Roadmaps, was organized by Ellen H. Goldberg of the Santa Fe Institute, who felt that already "Roadmaps have become an indispensable tool in technological planning". A "Roadmap" is an extended look at the future of a given field of investigation which can include goals, trends, and the identification of linkages, and can identify the knowledge and instruments needed to solve problems. A roadmap is then created by as many practicing professionals as possible, and revised periodically in order to allow feedback and for all suggestions to be considered. Even the "white spaces" (blank areas) on a roadmap can suggest new investigations. Goldberg concludes that, because industries and engineering organizations plan ahead (i.e. make "roadmaps" of their future activities), then the science-funding agencies should be capable of doing the same. The first speaker, Robert W. Galvin of Motorola, presented "Roadmapping an industry and more", showing how his firm had successfully planned ventures and had even anticipated some particular technological research findings.

However, when Floyd E. Bloom, of the Scripps Research Institute and Editor of Science magazine, presented his "Perspectives from the bench side", some concern was raised in the ensuing Q&A period by members of the audience because the ability to conduct predictions (about which new theories or models ­ about observations to be made on naturally occurring phenomena ­ will be shortly forthcoming) is hardly possible[1].

Science is that human activity devoted to the search for the very explanation for (i.e. the search for the truth about) some naturally occurring phenomenon (cf. Oxford English Dictionary: its entry for "science" and the emphasis there on truth). A scientist presents his findings, his claim for a new truth about some aspect of nature, as his model (theory) of the phenomenon, after submitting this to scrutinous review, within the published literature (Mihram and Mihram, 1974). Because technology and engineering are the application of already well-established scientific models, then it becomes somewhat straightforward in these fields to predict and, therefore, to plan for new technological developments.

Indeed, such technological developments, founded upon established scientific models, are, actually, themselves excellent confirmations of an already professed scientific theory/model. They are indeed a part of the overall "scientific method", but they are not the same as new scientific progress, since they fail to provide a new truth about naturally occurring phenomena.

In effect, for one to be able to make any successful "roadmap" for science ­ as opposed to one for technology ­ one must be aware of the mental process by which a scientist, having observed some particular phenomenon and then reflected thereon, will arrive at a new understanding of it.

We know that, according to Konrad Lorenz, "everything we can know is based on a model or analogy of real things built up in our nervous system" (emphasis is his)[2]. Hence, if we are to be able to provide a successful roadmap for science, then we must be able to say in advance just which pertinent analogies scientists are going to make. But, if one can do this himself (or, even if a committee of such planners could), then why would one wait for some other scientist to accomplish the goal? Why not just publish the analogy itself and proceed to claim the rewards (Nobel or less noble) alone?

Hence, the proposal for successfully providing a roadmap for innovative science ­ as opposed to technology ­ appears to be a mostly uninformed expression of hope, though of course implementations of any such "roadmapping" for science could serve to make certain that only "politically correct" investigations will be funded.

A scientist ­ as opposed to a technologist, such as one promising to devise a working radar or an atomic bomb--who writes a proposal is essentially promising to attain a result which, as per the discussion above, he cannot assure that he can accomplish. Unfortunately, several leading scientists have noted that their research proposals are penned, promising therein results that they have already or just attained (even submitting their proposal on the same date that the manuscript describing their research is being despatched for editorial review). Ethics in science is not served under either scenario.

The Sandwich's Other Slice

Though the concluding symposia of the meeting were therefore a bit unsettling, perhaps the recordings of those symposia can indeed direct scientists in the upcoming millennium of science to a promise of being a much more certain one. Clearly, our understanding of the scientific method, having been derived before the end of our present millennium, can only provide optimism in the next 1,000 years.

This year's meeting did commence, on the other hand, with topical lectures and symposia which were quite directly of pertinence to readers of LHTN, even while dealing with the history and philosophy of science.

Jaron Lanier (lead scientist, National Tele-immersion Initiative, Internet2 Central Laboratory) presented Information Technologies and the Future of Scientific Method. His presentation would have fit perfectly into the meeting's theme, provided that the AAAS meetings office had intended to portray the meeting as the ending of a proclaimed millennium of certain uncertainty.

According to Lanier, "science as we know it would be inconceivable without printed publication. Publication is what makes replication of results possible. Publication allows scientists to function together as a community, while also motivating individual scientists by creating the ability to leave a legacy. One recent and happy 'spin off' from scientific method is the technology of the World Wide Web, which was invented for physicists who wished to speed the process of publication."

Lanier also noted that while the benefits of information technology to the sciences are obvious, it has also created new problems. "Scientists are facing an explosion of available data and publications, and it has become humanly impossible for any one person to keep abreast of developments in some fields of study. Furthermore, while some problems which have not yielded to traditional scientific standards of reduction have been usefully simulated in computers, there is no generally accepted standard practice of publication in these cases."

Though Lanier spoke with confidence about computer representations, or simulations, his confidence centered about his conviction that computer programmes, or software applications, are "brittle", in the sense that they would break before they would bend. However, he then viewed this as information technology having a negative effect on the future of the scientific method itself.

This perceived effect of "brittleness" of computer software was portrayed by Lanier as the result of having, with the passage of time, to "layer" hardware with operating systems (a software-induced property of computers), then software applications. Yet, he added, during the same period, there exists among software developers a "sedimentation" process: the ideas leading to an original programme become imbedded in the thought processes of subsequent developers[3].

As an example, he noted that the term "file" (of electronic data retrievable by a computer) arose initially via developers of Windows and might otherwise never have remained in computer jargon, since it is merely a representation of an "organizational structure" in computer software. Yet, the term now is treated as an intrinsic part of "computer nature".

Lanier moved then to the use of computers to model, or to represent (simulate) biological systems. He voiced the unfortunately commonly held belief that such representations require notions of chaos (a field of modern mathematics).

Lanier felt that it should be a fundamental goal of computer scientists to provide a mechanism for the review of such simulation models, compounded because a model under review is not always capable of being "run" on every reviewer's computer. He also added comments on the lack of compatibility of models written for one generation of computers with the next generation. Though he admitted that the advent of Internet 2 creates an opportunity to develop and test alternative approaches to scientific collaboration, he also noted that "fundamental unsolved problems in computer science stand in the way of some intriguing possible future directions for collaborative practices".

These matters, dealing with the review, publication, and archival storage of simulations, had been essentially resolved in the literature earlier (Mihram, 1972; Mihram and Mihram, 1989), including notes therein that living, or biological, systems are better represented by strictly algorithmic (i.e. by logical but not usually mathematical!) models, for which computer programming is intrinsically capable. Each algorithm represents a decision; and decisions are just what distinguishes the behaviour of living ­ as opposed to strictly physical ­ creatures and systems.

Summarising all these comments, one should not take very seriously the suggestion, implicit in Lanier's presentation's title, that the scientific method itself is under threat of any change as a result of information technologies, either during or after their convergence. The scientific method is a process well established not only by human history but also by biological survival (Young, 1964)[4].

Cyberterror

Following Lanier's presentation and recorded discussion thereof, the very next symposium, Cyberterrorism in the Next Millennium: An Old Threat from a New Technology ­ organized by Richard Marks, Vinson and Elkins, LLP; Bhavani Pathak, AAAS; Sanyin Siang, AAAS (see Siang, et al., 2000) ­ contained five presentations, including one to have been presented by the FBI's Michael Vatis, though his was replaced by Kevin Poulsen (klp. SecurityFocus.com), who rather smugly presented his experience as being the first illicit hacker to be charged with espionage. (Though initially a fugitive, he was eventually cleared of the espionage charge.)

The symposium's organizers noted, in their abstract, that "although the new millennium is marked by great strides in scientific and technological progress, it also unveils new threats to national security. The past decade has witnessed increasing concern over the destructive potential of information technology. Originally a project of the US Department of Defense, the Internet has rapidly evolved to become an integral weave in our national infrastructure. Our financial services, transportation, electrical delivery systems which supply our homes and hospitals, and the way we communicate with one another are, in some way, dependent on our information technology network. As disruption of this network poses potentially dire consequences, protection of the information technology (IT) infrastructure against vulnerabilities and attacks has become a national security concern of the highest priority. Cyberterrorism possesses several distinct features, such as low entry cost, lack of geographical boundaries, the opportunity to manipulate perception, and blurred distinctions between the public versus private, criminal versus warlike, which merit special attention and heighten concern. The complexity of the issue is reflected in the ongoing debate on encryption, the defense allocations of IT[2] and a Clinton Administration proposal for fiscal year 2000 which plans to allocate a significant amount towards critical infrastructure protection."

Poulsen had had extensive access to a major telephone network (Pacific Bell) in California and was able to take advantage of this in order to enter Department of Motor Vehicles records statewide. He was, in such a position, even able to detect when the FBI was conducting wiretaps in an effort to locate (trace) him! Only because the FBI was able to locate informants (to whom Poulsen had suggested the nature of his nefarious activities) was he arrested.

Poulsen felt that the vulnerabilities of the Internet are lessening, since earlier (within the phone company's system) one could have "crashed [through] a switch and thus go right in [into the system]". He added that, since the Internet does not own its own power grid, such "insider" behaviour would be more difficult.

Immediately to us came to mind the reaction of Fiji's Postmaster General after we ­ at the Pacific Tele-communications Conference in 1995 ­ had proposed that each nation must organize and operate its own tele-communicative network. He observed that, if only unregulated and multiple carriers continue to exist, then surely, one day, one or more of these will experience financial hardship, meaning that intercepting certain messages could become more rewarding than delivering them without interception. The tale of The Three Musketeers, in which the (real-life) character, the Cardinal Richelieu, observes chaos in the delivery systems then extant (unregulated, multiple carriers) comes to mind. Richelieu is recognised (again, in real life!) as the founder/father of the national postal system.

Furthermore, it is possible for computer-driven telephone-calling systems to overload personal or commercial Web sites or even "911" emergency circuits. The constitutional duty of the US Congress to "establish [electronic] post-offices and post-roads" so as to "ensure domestic tranquility" should be apparent (Mihram and Mihram, 1999).

Poulsen's ability to intercept telephone lines enabled him to win a Porsche in a contest conducted by Radio KIIS in Los Angeles. He was able to make sure that he was the nth (where the value of n had just been announced over the airwaves!) caller to provide the correct answer.

Then, the next speaker, Daniel O'Conner, of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), delineated a number of quite possible cyberterrorism events. For example, he listed eight infrastructures which are subject to either natural or "cyber-"attacks.

O'Conner felt that the rapid globalisation of computer-connected tele-communication networks has made computer files and operations incredibly accessible. He noted that the NIPC is hopeful that re-configurations of networks will likely resolve these difficulties, though again the earlier remarks of Fiji's Postmaster General come to mind. He reminded the audience of organized crime (Russian-based, primarily) into cyber-crime, the group having already "stolen" phone card IDs and some credit-card ID information!

There is a quite natural need for law-enforcement agencies to be able to acquire evidence of such cyber-crimes for subsequent prosecutions, the "threat" of which protects us all.

The NIPC reports directly to the White House and O'Conner projected his hope that it will become a permanent organization, rather than some short-term "political football" entity. Yet, he believes that the "protection system should be private"! Perhaps his political leanings are not founded on a nation with an ensured domestic tranquility. Fortunately, the NIPC is being used to ensure that FBI agents generally ­ and those of the FBI's Counter-terrorism Division particularly ­ are being trained in "cyber-crime detection".

The subsequent speaker, Richard Marks, of the law firm Vinson and Elkins, spoke of "National security and civil liberties", devoting most of his effort to the second (rather than the first) topic. In his remarks on the so-called "right to privacy", he noted that they had originated with Justice Brandeis [whom he also had to acknowledge (cf. Tapes of session) was in a minority opinion], but failed to bring to listeners' attention Judge Robert Bork's precise description of our courts' misbehaviour concerning this topic of "privacy" (Bork, 1996). Marks seems to feel, e.g. that there is a "right to be anonymous", though he presented a few cases where it is actually illegal to conduct oneself in such a manner.

The symposium's final speaker, Scott Charney of Price-Waterhouse-Coopers, spoke on the difficulty of identifying the source of electronic messages, yet did not explicitly recognize the need to use (within every electronic storage facility) as a means of retaining evidence regarding either attempted or successful entries. Charney noted also that computer security may well require even greater surveillance of employees' communications. Allowing anonymity is a great policy for criminality, but the nation (and/or the enterprise) seek accountability, he added.

Condiments in the AAAS-2000 Sandwich

One symposium of Saturday afternoon was entitled You Can't Talk About That: New Legal Restrictions on the Use of Published Data. It was organised by Susan R. Poulter, of the University of Utah's Law School[5].

The question "Can scientific authors publish their work and simultaneously limit the use others make of the underlying data?" was a leading question at this symposium. According to Poulter's abstract, "the answer has been 'no', because copyright and patent law exclude 'facts', including scientific data, from their protection, in the interest of promoting public discourse and scientific progress". The abstract also notes the following: "Two recent developments may foreshadow changes in the current balance between protection through copyright and patent and traditional norms of scientific discourse. Two committees of the House of Representatives recently have approved database protection legislation, whose effects on use of data made available through electronic databases is [sic] unclear. In another arena, states are being urged to adopt the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, which may make it possible for authors and publishers to limit the use of data provided in electronic publications. Both of these developments parallel similar actions in the European Union and the World Intellectual Property Organization, and thus are part of a broader threat to traditional scientific norms."

The paper, "Whose Information is it, Anyway?", by J. Rosenbaum, of the firm Greenberg Traurig, was a bit disappointing in that the speaker strongly felt that the only reason for copyright protection is the wealth of authors (see Poulter et al., 2000 in note [5]). The Constitution of the United States of America states clearly what is the purpose of the copyright protection which Congress has a duty to provide: namely, in order to promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts. That is, the establishment of one's priority of discovery is the basis for a nation (itself founded on a principle of ensured domestic tranquility) to provide copyright protection.

Daniel L. Burk, the next speaker, of the University of Minnesota Law School, seemed to be more favourably inclined to a non-monetary motivation for copyright protection, noting that its "benefit to the public" is of paramount concern. He then related legal difficulties which shrink-wraps for software or other digitised products present. Producers attempt to write clauses on these wraps implying that the purchaser, once the wrap is broken, has already agreed to certain conditions, even on the use of the unwrapped product (such as giving it away!). He noted that these "shrink-wrapped" conditions have been seldom enforceable in the courts.

Apparently, according to Burk, one such shrink-wrap included a clause which made it a "violation of a contract" if the purchaser/user ever published a review of the product! (Where, one might have added, is the almost-omnipresent ACLU?!)

As for database copyright, the US Congress is apparently attempting to deal with "European reciprocity provisions", so that American law would be thereto compatible. Burk expanded on HR 354, which defines collections of information as data. Unfortunately, Congress has been attempting to use the Constitution's Commerce Clause, rather than the Copyright Clause, in order to define database protection.

The final speaker, Peter B. Boyce, of the American Astronomical Society (AAS), then presented a very encouraging report, "Perspective of an Electronic Publishing Pioneer", noting that the AAS has digitised their entire publications, including graphs and tables, back to 1849 and these are all available on line! See http://www.aas.org/publications/index.htm

What was most intriguing in his report was how the AAS, as they were actually digitizing this material, made arrangements for every published paper to conclude with an ever-updated listing of every future [!] publication which ever references it!! Indeed, on the AAS Web site click on the electronic editions of the Astronomical Journal, the Astrophysical Journal, and The Bulletin of the AAS. Of course, the database is organized so as to make perpetual this feature.

Internet Bounty

On Saturday afternoon the symposium, Internet Bounty: How the Public Harvests Science and Health Information, was a bounty of information about ways in which "consumers" search for information on the Web. Reference librarians whose experience extends as far back as the days of library fee-based Dialog searches and the preliminary "patron search interview" would probably conclude, after this symposium, that "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"!

The organizers of the symposium (Julie Ann Miller, Science News, and Carol L. Rogers, University of Maryland-College Park) noted that "massive quantities of information about science and health are available on the Internet. Organizations and businesses of all types are spending huge amounts of money, time, and effort creating, maintaining, and promoting their sites." Their goal for the session was to examine several questions: "Although scientists and journalists have come to rely heavily on the Internet in their professional lives, is the public making use of the newly available electronic resources? Are people visiting the many sites targeted to bring scientific and medical information ­ ranging from Mars exploration to flu treatments ­ to non-specialists? What are the consumers learning, and how do they use that information? Are they satisfied with what they find? How can people evaluate the reliability of the sites that they visit? What impact is the Internet having overall on public understanding of science? What can we conclude about popular use of the Internet and its impact on acquisition of scientific and medical information by the general public. In coming decades, the Internet is expected to become the leading source of such information. What are the signs that this is actually happening?"

Ivars Peterson, of Science News, presented a "Tour" of the scientific Web by visiting a sampling of Web sites accessible to anyone. The audience benefitted from his handout containing the list of the most useful sites that he has used for his reporting on Science News. Copies of his helpful handout are available upon request via email to Peterson at ip@sciserv.org

Jon D. Miller, of Northwestern University, noted in his presentation ("Who Is Using the Web for Science and Health Information") that, in 1997, 7 percent of American adults reported that they had tried to find some scientific or technological information on the Web, and that in 1999 that number had increased to 19 percent ("fully 60 million individuals"). Much of his presentation was a report on the communities of Web users (arranged by gender, education, and age) based on a series of extensive national surveys. His report will be posted on the National Science Foundation's site http://www.nsf.org

Perhaps the most inspiring presentation at this Symposium was that of Eve-Marie Lacroix, who discussed the creation of MEDLINEplus http://medlineplus.org which was created in 1998 to guide "consumers" in their searches for health-related topics. The site is very didactic, guiding the user through authoritative and reliable resources. The criteria for selection of such resources are strict. For example, the health-related sites to which the user is directed must have boards of directors. If a site's domain is in the ".com" category (commercial), it is excluded.

At its inception (1998), MEDLINEplus provided the following categories for searching based on the Library of Medicine's tracking of consumers' most frequently used keywords (list arranged in order of frequency, first = most frequent): Viagara (!), Diabetes, Shingles, Prostate (prior to MEDLINEplus "prostrate" was a frequent misspelling of the word), Hypertension, Lypus, Lyme disease. Challenges to the system continue to be the differing mental models of searching by users (e.g. an actual search sample: "dizziness on off sometime severe") as well as misspellings and the many non-medical words used by consumers to refer to specific medical terms. A vocabulary/thesaurus server is in the planning stages in order to remedy this problem.

A concluding remark

Though AAAS-2000 began and ended with material dealing with both information technology and scientific method, it was a bit disturbing to see such a lack of appreciation for our current understanding of the scientific method itself (Mihram, 1975)[6]. This attitude was reflected in the very theme of the meeting, "Science in an uncertain millennium," which to many conveyed the notion that science is filled with so much uncertainty that even another millennium of research might help little.

We have here opted to describe this year's AMSIE (AAAS) Meeting as a "sandwich", one with many "meaty" and substantive, "tasty" contents. Yet, the meeting began and ended with materials on the subject of the scientific method, unfortunately presented with an extensive lack of knowledge by the organizers about the highly commended literature in this field. It is as though the meeting's presentations on the subject were by individuals living in about 1960, so that, as the slices of bread serving to enclose the sandwich's contents, these were quite "stale".

Perhaps the AAAS has allowed its meetings' program to be guided too much by an attitude of "infotainment" rather than factual information. If so, their leadership is doing our nation a disservice. If the true attitude of science (viz., the search for truths regarding the natural world) is allowed to be suppressed in a quest for "popularity ratings", then the impoverishment of the meetings via "infotainment" will have to be corrected. We hardly need "Lysenckoism" in our country, particularly that which would likely arise from an attempted confluence again of science and self-proclaimed pro-Marxist, such as the AAAS's current president S.J. Gould[7].

The 2001AMSIE (AAAS) meeting will be held in San Francisco from 15-20 February 2001.

Notes

1.  Bloom, F.E. (2000), "Science and technology roadmaps," Tape No. AS 0162 (Side 3 of 4), Audio Visual Education Network [AVEN], 10532 Greenwood Ave., N, Seattle, WA 98133, Year 2000: The Q&A part of the recorded session contains an exchange between Bloom and Mihram, G.A.: Mihram noted that Bloom's approach is rather foolhardy particularly since presentations made at AAAS Meetings [as early as 1992 (Chicago venue)] highlighted the fact that the very process of grant-seeking by a scientist is itself virtually unethical.

2.  Lorenz, K.Z. (1974), personal communication, 30 August 1974. In that context, see also Mihram and Mihram (1974).

3.  Lanier, J. et al. (2000), "Information technologies and the future of scientific method," Tape No AS007, AVEN, Seattle, WA, 2000. The Q&A part of the recorded session includes a discussion between Lanier and Mihram, G.A., centered on Lanier's concern about the "publication" in the scientifically reviewed "press" of "compound, computer-based models", particularly those of biological systems. Essentially, Lanier's expressions of concern were corrected by means of references to longstanding observations in the published literature.

4.  Young, J.Z., personal communication, 15 October 1974; and Carey, W.D., personal communication from the Executive Officer, AAAS: 29 January 1975.

5.  Poulter, S.R. et al. (2000), "You can't talk about that", Tape No. AS045, AVEN, Seattle, WA: with regard to copyright protection, the use of digital watermarking by the Library of Congress at the time of each copyright registration could greatly ensure copyright protection for digitized materials (see: Mihram, D. and Mihram, G.A. (2000), "Resolving two congressional duties: electronic copyright and the electronic post-office ­ and post-roads", Computers in Libraries 2000, Information Today, Inc., Medford, NJ, pp. 195-204).

6.  Lorenz, K.Z., personal communication, 30 August 1974; and Young, J.Z., personal communication, 15 October 1974.

7.  See Wilson, E.O. et al. (2000), "Relation between biology and humanities", Tape No. AS023, Side 2 of 2, AVEN, Seattle, WA. Mihram, G.A. and Wilson, E.O. re-confirm Wilson's earlier claim that it was Marxists who had physically assaulted him when he made his 1975 presentation on sociobiology at the AAAS's meeting that year.

Danielle Mihram is Assistant Dean for the Leavey Library and Director, Center for Excellence in Teaching, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. dmihram@calvin.usc.edu

G. Arthur Mihram is an author/consultant, Princeton, New Jersey.