by Val » Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:28 am
I would like to elaborate further on my previous posting. Take, for example, physics. The consensus is that physics as a science is finished. No principically new discoveries were made in the past few decades. The number of scientific journals mushroomed lately, and the numerous publications are of low quality.
And yet we know that those who claimed that physics was dead, turned out to be wrong later. For example, in the beginning of the 20th century, physicists claimed that there will be no further development of physics and its fundementals are laid: mechanics of Newton and molecular physics adequately describe the world. However, as we know, the relativity theory and quantum physics were brought into life which considered a different universe (e.g. sub-atomic) and gave us e.g. nuclear bomb, transitor and laser.
Up to now, physics has been about ANALYSIS of phenomena. It is now the time to do SYNTHESIS of known facts. For example, we know that the forces in the surrounding world are of 4 types: electrical, gravitational and two types of sub-atomic. However, some people claim that there is just one type of force, and those mentioned 4 forces are just particular embodyments.
We know what kind of organic molecules living organisms consist of, within the discipline of molecular biology. But we know almost nothing about what is the functionality of a living organism if we know the properties of the molecules the organism is made of. As an illustration, suppose the aliens got hold of a TV set. They sliced it thinly and learnt how its incestines are made. But can they derive what s the purpose of TV set from the analysis of its sliced incestines ? No !
The science of biotechnology is at its infancy. Biotechnology is about fabricating living systems with known properties out of simple molecules with known properties. People are just starting to learn about what is the behaviour of the system given the known properties of the constituting chemical elements. The tools are bioinformatics and bio tests, and they are still grossly inadequate for the task. The life scientists of the future are posed with the task to invent those tools, and this task is an order (or even two) of magnitude more complex than any life science work made up to date.
The life science of the future will demand an order of magnitude greater amount of scientists. However, those future scientists will have skills totally different to the skills of today's scientists. Today's scientists will not be able to work in the laboratories of the future. One cannot learnt the skilols of the future in any university of the world.
Then, people may ask: what should they learnt in order to enter the workforce of the future ? The answer is "nothing", as no university now can prepare them. However, learning the todays' scientific tools cannot be discarded, as the science of the future will have in its fundament the achievements of today.
You cannot learn the trade of the future, so I would advise to my younger contemporaries to keep their learning capabilities sharp. One should experience the feeling of achievement from the completion of a today's project -- this will prepare one to be qualified to work on the projects of the future. In order to complete the project, one should first of all enjoy doing it. Do what you like to do, and the rest will somehow (perhaps through some amount of inevitable suffering) will come to you.
Regards,
Val