Inefficiency of secret research?
isaa...@gmail.com
I'm writing an article which makes a point about the risks inherent in
conducting research in secrecy, particularly inefficiency (or even
ineffectiveness) .
I wonder if anyone has a favourite pithy quote from a respected
scientist about the desirability of research being conducted openly?
A quote which tied in with unnecessary secrecy and/or a culture of
secrecy would be ideal.
All the best,
Isaac Koi
p.ki...@imperial.ac.uk
Secrecy in research isn't necessarily inefficient: it depends on
the goal. There's no point in making good progress, helped by
comments and contributions of the wider community if you need
to ensure no-one knows what you are attempting, or if one of
them takes over the idea or the project against your wishes.
An open approach might be faster, but speed is no substitute if
your goal demands secrecy. You pick your strategy according to
needs, and take your chances.
I apologise for being neither pithy nor famous enough; but not for
not uncritically agreeing with your premise.
--
---------------------------------+---------------------------------
Dr. Paul Kinsler
Blackett Laboratory (QOLS) (ph) +44-20-759-47520 (fax) 47714
Imperial College London, Dr.Paul...@physics.org
SW7 2BW, United Kingdom. http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/~kinsle/
Marc Millis
wrote:
I have a vague recollection of John Cramer (U. Washington Professor, sci-
fi writer and regular contributor to Analog) giving the following
analogy:
Nuclear Technology:
- Done in secret.
- Russians kept right up with US.
Computer Technology:
- Research in the open literature
- Products in commerce
- Russians never did keep up
- Russians had to buy US stuff
From this analogy, the "secrecy" was not any determent to learning the
secrets.
John should be listed in the Directory of U. Washington
Sid Lanier
news:1147434913.7...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> I'm writing an article which makes a point about the risks inherent in
> conducting research in secrecy, particularly inefficiency (or even
> ineffectiveness) .
Sir, the historical facts speak otherwise. I suddenly have in mind the U.S.
Manhattan Project, the German V-2 rocket project, Newton's work on his
Principia, etc., etc
>
> I wonder if anyone has a favourite pithy quote from a respected
> scientist about the desirability of research being conducted openly?
If you are qualified to write an article about the ineffectiveness and risks
inherent in conducting research in secrecy, why do you need someone else to
provide you with such a quote from a respected scientist?
>
> A quote which tied in with unnecessary secrecy and/or a culture of
> secrecy would be ideal.
All the best to you, but I think you're misguiding yourself.
SL
Ian Taylor
Andrew Wiles effectively carried out the bulk of the research proving
Fermat's Last Theorem in secret, and that seems to have been pretty
efficient (seeing as how the proof had evaded everyone else for over 2
centuries)
Ian Taylor
p.ki...@imperial.ac.uk
> <isaa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > scientist about the desirability of research being conducted openly?
> If you are qualified to write an article about the ineffectiveness and risks
> inherent in conducting research in secrecy, why do you need someone else to
> provide you with such a quote from a respected scientist?
> > A quote which tied in with unnecessary secrecy and/or a culture of
> > secrecy would be ideal.
> All the best to you, but I think you're misguiding yourself.
I'd say that most physicists of my aquaintance would agree that
discussions with colleagues are helpful to the advance of ones
research, either by forcing you to describe the system, by
answering their questions, or by them making suggestions. I'd
be completely unsurprised if a quote like the one sought was
out there somewhere.
"Secrecy" can be something of an ill defined word in this
context -- the Manhatten Project was secret, but not within
it's large number of participants. I might do some research
completely openly and have fewer discussions with fewer
people than an average Manhatten Project researcher.
John Bell
> Sid Lanier <slan...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > <isaa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > scientist about the desirability of research being conducted openly?
>
> > inherent in conducting research in secrecy, why do you need someone else to
> > provide you with such a quote from a respected scientist?
>
> > > secrecy would be ideal.
>
>
> I'd say that most physicists of my aquaintance would agree that
> discussions with colleagues are helpful to the advance of ones
> research, either by forcing you to describe the system, by
> answering their questions, or by them making suggestions.
Quite so. In addition, even purely negative comments pointing out
potential flaws in your system can still enable you to refine your
system. I have found that professionals in the field are often prepared
to perform such functions in confidence, if
a) this is desirable to pre-empt the possibility of being 'pipped at
the post' in the publication of a major new thesis.
b) the research is subject to Trade Secrecy restrictions.
c) the research is subject to State Secrecy restrictions.
I would suggest that (a) is usually an adequate reason even if the
research does not have potential practical applications.
>
> "Secrecy" can be something of an ill defined word in this
> context -- the Manhatten Project was secret, but not within
> it's large number of participants. I might do some research
> completely openly and have fewer discussions with fewer
> people than an average Manhatten Project researcher.
>
Again, I am in full agreement. Perhaps a more appropriate term is
confidentiality. This has a precise legal meaning in terms of
disclosures made under both Trade and State secrecy law, as well as in
Civil law for agreements made under consideration (a).
There are sound reasons for the existence of both trade and state
secrecy laws, just as there are sound reasons for desiring a degree of
confidentiality within the initial peer review process.
John (Liberty) Bell
http://global.accelerators.co.uk
(Change John to Liberty to respond by email)
isaa...@gmail.com
> An open approach might be faster, but speed is no substitute if
> your goal demands secrecy. You pick your strategy according to
> needs, and take your chances.
>
> I apologise for being neither pithy nor famous enough; but not for
> not uncritically agreeing with your premise.
>
> ---------------------------------+---------------------------------
> Dr. Paul Kinsler
Hi Paul,
I'd like to thank you (and the others that responded to my email) for
the thought provoking points and examples raised.
I think some individuals took my words as somehow suggesting that I was
against all secrecy. This is not the case. I merely think that there
are certain _risks_ involved in secrecy. (The risks that I mentioned
were the possibility that the relevant research would be inefficient or
ineffective).
There are, of course, often entirely rational reasons for indulging in
conduct which involves certain risks. Take, for example, the risks
involved in driving a car above the legal speed limit. I'm sure that
most people would agree with me that there are risks involved in such
conduct, including an increased risk of injury to the driver and
innocent by-standers. However, there can be justifications for
travelling above the speed limit (e.g. driving my wife to hospital as
quickly as possible since she is bleeding to death).
In relation to the risks involved in research conducted in secrecy, I
have found the following working paper by Steven Aftergood particularly
interesting:
http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/rej02/rej02b.html
The relevant working paper acknowledges that projects proceedings in
secret can be successful (and refers, for example, to the Manhattan
Project) but collates a number of opinions (from those involved in the
private sector as well as the Department of Defense Inspector General
and others) about examples of projects which were adversely affected by
secrecy.
For example, that working paper includes the following example:
"The Navy's A-12 attack aircraft program is something of a paradigm
of a secret program run amok. The A-12 was a "special access"
program, which means that access to information about the program was
strictly limited using controls above and beyond those applied to other
classified information. Because of these stringent controls on access,
oversight was inhibited and officials were slow to learn that the
program could not possibly accomplish its goals, resulting in its
cancellation in 1991 after the expenditure of some $2.7 billion
dollars. "The fact that it was a special access program, and the fact
that there were limited clearances granted to oversight individuals to
look at the program certainly were contributing factors" in the
program failure, according to the Department of Defense Inspector
General :House Armed Services Committee, hearing on "The Navy's
A-12 Aircraft Program," 101 Congress, December 10, 1990 [HASC No.
101-84], p. 88."
Thanks again to all that commented.
Kind Regards,
Isaac Koi
tes...@um.bot
I haven't really been following this thread, but this caught my eye.
Quite apart from the substantial differences between pure mathematics
and public/secret Big Science (which I think is what the OP was asking
about), I think you are missing some important points about this story.
First, don't jump from Fermat or Sophie Germain or even Tanimaya-Shimura
straight to Andrew Wiles. In fact, Wiles was building on published
papers by -contemporary- mathematicians which were widely recognized as
very important, particularly work by Frey and Ribet. His achievement is
indeed very impressive, even heroic, but it would be terribly misleading
to imply ("the proof had eluded everyone else for two centuries") that
Wiles proved FLT all by himself starting entirely from scratch!
Second, don't overestimate the "secrecy" or even the isolation of Wiles.
Even first year graduate students thousands of miles away knew Wiles was
rumored to be working on FLT and even that he had apparently
discovered/invented some important new ideas and was making considerable
progress; what others didn't know was the precise -nature- of these new
ideas or just how -much- progress he was making. Near the end, Wiles
gradually began to confide details to some of his colleagues. Also, he
wasn't living in a cave, but was carrying on his normal duties outside
his "secret" research.
Again, none of this in any way minimizes his landmark accomplishment, I
am just saying that you might be trying to draw the wrong lessons from
this story.
This was off-topic, so followups should probably go to sci.math.
"T. Essel"
I.Vecchi
..
> Andrew Wiles effectively carried out the bulk of the research proving
> Fermat's Last Theorem in secret, and that seems to have been pretty
> efficient (seeing as how the proof had evaded everyone else for over 2
> centuries)
That Wiles' first version of his famous proof was incomplete emerged
only after he went public with it. He then fixed it with Richard
Taylor's help. The results of the Manhattan project and of the German
V2 program were not secret at all. They were all open to pubic
scrutiny, so open that London and Hiroshima inhabitants could not deny
that the results were real, even if they wished to. Without independent
verification a result can hardly be regarded as scientific.
Compare that with, say, Gravity Probe B:
"Playing the role of our own harshest critic, our science team will
then perform a careful and thorough final review of the analysis and
results, checking and cross-checking each aspect to ensure the
soundness of our procedures and the validity of our outcomes.We will
then turn the analysis and results over to our GP-B Science Advisory
Committee (SAC), that has been closely monitoring our experimental
methods, data analysis procedures, and progress for 11 years, to obtain
its independent review. In addition, we will seek independent reviews
from a number of international experts."([1])
I wonder what they will do if an "independent" expert shakes his head.
IV
Dirk Bruere
> Ian Taylor ha scritto:
>
> Compare that with, say, Gravity Probe B:
> "Playing the role of our own harshest critic, our science team will
> then perform a careful and thorough final review of the analysis and
> results, checking and cross-checking each aspect to ensure the
> soundness of our procedures and the validity of our outcomes.We will
> then turn the analysis and results over to our GP-B Science Advisory
> Committee (SAC), that has been closely monitoring our experimental
> methods, data analysis procedures, and progress for 11 years, to obtain
> its independent review. In addition, we will seek independent reviews
> from a number of international experts."([1])
> I wonder what they will do if an "independent" expert shakes his head.
>
> IV
>
> [1] http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl.html
Why don't they make the raw data public, perhaps even in realtime?
What's the problem?
Dirk
I.Vecchi
> I.Vecchi wrote:
..
> > Compare that with, say, Gravity Probe B:
> Why don't they make the raw data public, perhaps even in realtime?
> What's the problem?
>
> Dirk
Very good question. Jonathan Thornburg and Steve Carlip provided
valuable replies at [1].
The specter of data-adjusting based on experimenter's bias does not
appear particularly haunting here. Not officially at least. On the
other hand, once your satellite has "warped into hyperspace" once (no
kidding, see [2]) , you may want to prevent its data-stream from
causing further mischief.
IV
[1] "Accuracy vs. Relevance"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/9512d809de0c6ec9/
[2]"Gravity Probe B bored of normal life"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/3ac0c64e5765c59a/
Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply
someone wrote (quoting http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl.html):
>> Compare that with, say, Gravity Probe B:
>> "Playing the role of our own harshest critic, our science team will
>> then perform a careful and thorough final review of the analysis and
>> results, checking and cross-checking each aspect to ensure the
>> soundness of our procedures and the validity of our outcomes.We will
>> then turn the analysis and results over to our GP-B Science Advisory
>> Committee (SAC), that has been closely monitoring our experimental
>> methods, data analysis procedures, and progress for 11 years, to obtain
>> its independent review. In addition, we will seek independent reviews
>> from a number of international experts."([1])
Dirk Bruere <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why don't they make the raw data public, perhaps even in realtime?
> What's the problem?
If our esteemed moderators will permit the slightl self-promotion,
I answered this question in a posting to this newsgroup last year.
It's in the archives at
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-11/msg0072221.html
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply" <jth...@aei.mpg-zebra.de>
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut),
Golm, Germany, "Old Europe" http://www.aei.mpg.de/~jthorn/home.html
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam