|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Information Technology
and the Conduct
of Research
The User's View
REPORT OF THE PANEL ON
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND
THE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 1989
OCR for page R2
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS · 2101 Constitution Avenue, NVV · Washington, DC 20418
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
scholars in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and their use for the general welfare. Under the authority of its congressional charter of
1863, the Academy has a working mandate that calls upon it to advise the federal government on
scientific and technical matters. The Academy carries out this mandate primarily through the
National Research Council, which it jointly administers with the National Academy of Engineering
and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press is President of the NAS.
The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) was established in 1964, under the charter of the NAS,
as a parallel organization of distinguished engineers, autonomous in its administration and in the
selection of members, sharing with the NAS its responsibilities for advising the federal government.
Dr. Robert M. White is President of the NAE.
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) was chartered in 1970 by the NAS to enlist distinguished members
of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public.
In this, the Institute acts under both the Academy's 1863 congressional charter responsibility to be an
adviser to the federal government and its own initiative in identifying issues of medical care, research,
and education. Dr. Samuel O. Thier is President of the IOM.
The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy is a joint committee of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. It includes
members of the councils of all three bodies.
This study received support from the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the National Bureau of Standards and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration of the Department of Commerce, the National Library of Medicine, and the National Science
Foundation. Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are
those of the Panel on Information Technology and the Conduct of Research of the Committee on
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Panel on Information Technology and the Conduct of
Research (U.S.)
Information technology and the conduct of research.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Information technology-Scientific applications.
2. Research-Technological innovations. I. Title.
Q180.55.I45P36 1989 001.4'2 88-28903
ISBN 0-309-03888-X
CopyIight @) 1989 by the National Academy of Sciences
No part of this book may be reproduced by any mechanical, photographic, or electronic process,
or in the form of a phonographic recording, nor may it be stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or
otherwise copied for public or private use, without written permission from the publisher, except for
the purposes of official use by the United States Government.
Printed in the United States of America
Cover Photograph:
Temperature field in January at a depth of 225 meters, from a global model of the
oceanic general circulation. Deep reds represent temperatures of 24°C and deep blues
are -2°C. Picture courtesy of Michael Colic. Reproduced from "Computer modeling in
physical oceanography from the global circulation to turbulence," William R. Holland and
James C. McWilliams. Physics Today, vol. 40, no. 10, p. 52.
OCR for page R3
Panel on ~fonnadon
Technology and the
Conduct of Research
DONALD N. LANGENBERG (Chair), Chancellor, University of Illinois at Chicago
W. RICHARDS ADRION, Chair, Computer and Information Science Department,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
JOSEPH BALLAM, Professor, Department of Physics, Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center, Stanford, California
BRUCE G. BUCHANAN, Professor and Co-Director, Center for Parallel, Distributed,
and Intelligent Systems, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM J. EMERY, Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering Science,
University of Colorado, Boulder
DAVID A. HODGES, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Sciences, University of California, Berkeley
DAVID A. HOFFMAN, Professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Univer-
sity of Massachusetts, Amherst
F. THOMAS JUSTER, Professor of Economics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
SARA B. KIESLER, Professor, Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie
Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
KENNETH M. KING, President, EDUCOM, Princeton, New Jersey
ROBERT LANGRIDGE, Professor, Schools of Pharmacy and Medicine, University of
California, San Francisco
NINA W. MATHESON, Director, William H. Welch Medical Library, The Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
DAVID A. PENSAK, Corporate Advisor, Computing Technology, E. I. du Pont de
Nemours and Co., Wilmington, Delaware
ALLAN H. WEIS, Vice President, Data Systems Division, IBM Enterprise Systems,
White Plains, New York
iii
OCR for page R4
1V
Staff
JOHN R. B. CLEMENT, Study Directo,
AUDREY PENDERGAST, StafF9fficer
ANN K. FINKBEINER, Writer
NISHA GOVINDANI, Secretary
JOAN ROOD, Secretary
OCR for page R5
Commiticc on Science, Engineering,
and Public Polity
Cornelius J. Pings (Chairman), Provost, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, California
GILBERT S. OMENN, Dean, School of Public Health and Community Medicine,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (former Chairman*)
H. NORMAN ABRAMSON, Executive Vice-President, Southwest Research Institute
San Antonio, Texas
ALBERT M. CLOGSTON, Member, Center for Materials Science, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico
PHILIP M. Cohort, Executive Vice-President, Boeing Commercial Airplane Com-
pany, Seattle, Washington
EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Washington, D.C.
GERALD P. DINNEEN,* Vice President, Science and Technology, Honeywell Incor-
porated, Minneapolis, Minnesota
ALFRED P. FISHMAN, William Maul Measey Professor of Medicine, and Director,
Cardiovascular-Pulmona~y Division, University of Pennsylvania School of Med-
icine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
RALPH E. GOMORY, Senior Vice-President for Science and Technology, IBM Corpo-
ration, Monk, New York
Zv~ GRILICHES,* Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Political Economy, Department of
Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
ARTHUR KELMAN, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation Senior Research Profes-
sor of Plant Pathology and Bacteriology, Department of Plant Pathology,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Francis E. Low, Institute Professor, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
*Term expired June 30, 1988.
V
OCR for page R6
V1
JOHN D. ROBERTS,* Institute Professor of Chemistry, Division of Chemistry and
Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California
KENNETH J. RYAN, Kate Macy Ladd Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology,
Haward Medical School; and Chain, Department of Obstetrics and Gyne-
cology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
HERBERT A. Simon, Richard King Mellon University Professor, Department of
Computer Science and Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
Ex Officio
FRANK PRESS, President, National Academy of Sciences
ROBERT M. WHITE, President, National Academy of Engineering
SAMUEL O. THIER, President, Institute of Medicine
Staff
ALLAN R. HOFFMAN, Executive Director
MYRON F. UMAN, Associate Executive Director
BARBARA A. CANDLAND, Administrative Coordinator
CATHY D. WILLIAMS, Administrative Secretary
OCR for page R7
Preface
The ever-present urge to categorize our fellow humans leads in this
computer age to the categories "computer literate" and "computer
illiterate." It might seem obvious that scientists and engineers, particu-
larly those engaged in research, must all be computer literate. After all, such
people work with numbers and data, and isn't that what computers are all about?
Yet the most superficial survey of researchers will reveal a wide range of
capabilities in the use of information technology (computers plus telecommuni-
cations) in research. It will also reveal endemic frustration and dissatisfaction.
Why? Is not the work of those researchers whose subject is information
technology itself yielding a steady stream of new capabilities for their colleagues
in other fields? Yes it is, and some of the new capabilities can truly be called
revolutionary. Are not researchers in many fields continually finding new ways to
apply information technology to do old things faster, better, and cheaper, and to
do new things which just yesterday were beyond the realm of possibility? Yes,
that is so. So much so, in fact, that there are many who believe that the pervasive
use of information technology in the conduct of research is changing profoundly
the very meaning of the word "research." Are not our institutions, agencies, and
companies, our policymakers, managers, and vendors finding ways to place the
new instruments of information technology in the hands of more and more
researchers? Yes, despite the usual fiscal constraints, they are.
Then what's the problem? Indeed, is there one? It was the suspicion that there
is a problem (many, actually), that there are serious impediments to the wider
and more effective use of information technology in research, that led the
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) to form the
Panel on Information Technology and the Conduct of Research and to charge it
to explore the situation and to report its findings, conclusions, and recommen-
dations. I agreed to chair the Panel because, as a scientist turned university
administrator and federal official, and a computer illiterate, I was excited by the
·e
V11
OCR for page R8
· --
V111
PREFACE
prospect of learning something of an issue I sense is of paramount importance to
the future of the global research enterprise. This report is the result of the Panel's
deliberations. Our subject is broad, its literature is scattered, and some of its
facets are still more art than science. We cannot claim to have produced the
definitive picture of the issue. We hope we have made a case for the importance
of understanding and addressing it, and perhaps shed some light on a creature
that reminds some of us of the elephant once investigated by an earlier panel.
If this report has value, it is due to the salient characteristic of the Panel
reflected in the report's subtitle, "The User's View." Most of the Panel members
are researchers active in disciplines not encompassed by the term "information
technology." They are expert but skeptical users of information technology in
their own research, in possession of exciting visions of what this technology
might bring to their fields, and of experienced views of what it has brought, and
at what cost. From my youth I remember an ad for an automobile, which urged
the reader to "Ask the man who owns one!" There's wisdom in that slogan; in
the absence of a considerable body of established knowledge, our Panel
focused on asking the men and women "who own one." The result is a report
that should speak to researchers experienced in the application of information
technology, as well as those who would like to gain more experience, and of
course to those engaged in supporting research. We believe it is worth the
reader's attention.
The conception and early stages of the study owe much to the Committee on
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. In particular, two former members of the
Committee deserve mention: Floyd E. Bloom, whose term with the committee
ended soon after this study's initiation; and Gilbert S. Omenn. Dr. Bloom
conceived the topic and played a central role in its birth. Dr. Omenn chaired
COSEPUP during the inception and most of the execution of the study. We also
must thank Norman Metzger of the National Research Council, who developed
the study's charge and initially served as study director.
Support for the study was provided by several federal agencies: the Department
of Energy; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the National
Bureau of Standards and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of
the Department of Commerce; the National LibraIy of Medicine; and the National
Science Foundation. Sun Microsystems, Inc., donated an advanced workstation
for the purpose of report production.
The study benefited from the opinions and reviews of many people: research
users, experts in computing, computing applications, and communications, and
policymakers. We received helpful advice and suggestions from too many
persons to mention by name; but we acknowledge the vital part their input
played. At the final stages of the report's preparation, four members of COSEPUP
served as a review group: John D. Roberts, as chair, and Alfred P. Fishman, Francis
E. Low, and Herbert A. Simon. We did not always take the advice offered; but we
always profited from it. Of course, the report's statements, findings, and recom-
mendations remain the sole responsibility of the Panel members.
OCR for page R9
LO
The Panel is particularly grateful to its professional staff: John Clement, Audrey
Pendergast, Ann Finkbeiner, and Nisha Govindani, who supported the study both
intellectually and logistically, while exhibiting exemplary patience. The Panel also
owes special thanks to Allan Hoilrnan, executive director of COSEPUP, for input
and support from conception to final dissemination; and also to Barbara
Candland and Cathy D. Williams of the COSEPUP staff. Without the efforts of all
these people, the study truly would not have taken place.
One final, and important, point: I share with many researchers a strong belief
that much of the power of science (whether practiced by scientists, engineers, or
clinical researchers) derives from the steadfast commitment to free and unfet-
tered communication of information and knowledge. This principle has been
part of the ethos of the global research community for centuries, and has sensed
it and the rest of humanity well. If asked to distill one key insight from my service
on this panel, I would respond with the assertion that information technology is
of truly enormous importance to the research community, and hence to all
humanity, precisely because it has the potential to enhance communication of
information and knowledge within that community by orders of magnitude. We
can now only dimly perceive what the consequences of that fact may be. That
there is a revolution occurring in the creation and dissemination of information,
knowledge, and, ultimately, understanding is clear to me. It is also clear to me
that it is critically important to maintain our commitment to free and unfettered
communication as we explore the uses of information technology in the conduct
of research. If my colleagues and I succeed through this report in conveying some
sense of this to our readers, and of the necessity that many individuals and
institutions be attentive to it, we will have discharged our duty.
DONALD N. LANGENBERG
Chair
PREFACE
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 7
The Use of Information Technology in Research 11
The Conduct of Research 13
Data Collection and Analysis 14
Communication ant! Collaboration Among Researchers
Information Storage and Retrieval 23
New Opportunities:
Approaching the Revolution Asymptotically
30
Institutional ant! Behavioral Impediments to the
Use of Information Technology in Research 34
Pane] Findings and Recommendations 47
Findings 47
Recommendations 50
Appendix A: List of Position Papers 57
Appendix B: Biographies of Pane] Members 5~3
Bibliography and Selected Readings 63
Inciex 69
18
X1
OCR for page R12
OCR for page R13
information Technology
and the Conduct
of Research
The User's View
OCR for page R14
