23 June
Dear Pamela Gay,
I’m marveling at the wonderful breakthroughs, discoveries, and achievements that scientists and engineers have made recently. Over the last few years, we’ve had the COVID-19 vaccine, CRISPR technology, and AlphaFold structures, just to name a few.
As a non-scientist, this got me wondering. What might the future of scientific progress look like?
Clearly, the conditions for doing science today are far better than it was 50, 100, 500, and 1,000 years ago. The modern scientific establishment is more inclusive, accessible, and well-resourced (although it still has some way to go).
On the other hand, the road to the frontier is also much longer. To specialize, every aspiring scientist must assimilate an expansive and growing mountain of knowledge between school and their doctorate program. Young people have so much to learn today just to catch up—perhaps more so than Isaac Newton needed to (although the man did invent calculus and classical mechanics). Perhaps it is no surprise then that many scientific endeavours today, from the Large Hadron Collider to the James Webb Telescope, are enormous human enterprises. Since nobody can know or do everything by their lonesome, the modern scientist must not only be a first-rate thinker, but a first-rate collaborator. That’s hard work.
I’ve heard others say that scientific discoveries are like apples on an apple tree; and that our predecessors have already picked all the low-hanging fruit. So if we’re going to reach the apples up high, we’re going to need better tools and higher ladders.
The analogy is somewhat true in fields like the game of chess. Many opening sequences, for example, like the Ruy Lopez, Caro-Kann Defense, and Reti Opening, were pioneered long ago by grandmasters of a bygone era. Modern grandmasters, by contrast, find it difficult to create wholly new ideas and tactics, as most of which have already been discovered (although the arrival of computer chess engines provided a fundamental twist). These days, ‘novelties’ in chess are more subtle—variations upon variations of pre-existing strategies. So modern chess players have to search even deeper inside their decision-trees and positional structures to find new moves that are both creative and viable.
But while the challenges are similarly true of science, I don't really like the comparisons to apple-picking or chess. Unlike both activities, science is rather fuzzy and open-ended. We’re not really sure as to what we’ll find or where such discoveries will take us. And it took humanity a very long time to pick the so-called “low-hanging fruits”. Apparently, nobody thought to measure the motion of falling bodies until Galileo Galilei rocked up in the late 1500s. Science has since exploded, thanks in part to a cocktail of great thinkers, better institutions, cultural shifts, better education, more investment, larger populations, and so on.
Still, I’m not sure if we can expect such a trend to continue, or whether history is at all a useful guide to the future of science. Should we expect a gradual accumulation of breakthroughs over the next few centuries? Perhaps we should expect periods of scientific stasis in between periods of explosion and surges? Or maybe it is some mix of the two. My suspicion, however, is that we can’t really say. Since we don’t know what we don’t know, it’s hard to say whether the next leap forward is just around the corner.
But I’m not a scientist, and I don’t really know anything. So I’d like to ask you, Pamela, as an astronomer and educator, how do you see the future of science unfolding? What challenges stand in the way?
Thanks for listening
Warm regards,
Tobias
Tobias Lim
Tobias Lim