Nevertheless, the speaker would have us accept a too-narrow and distorted view of how
innovation comes about, particularly in today’s world. Teamwork and individual enterprise are
not necessarily inconsistent, as the speaker would have us believe. Admittedly, if exercised in
a self-serving manner--for example, through pilfering or back stabbing--individual enterprise
and energy can serve to thwart a business organization’s efforts to innovate. However, if
directed toward the firm’s goals these traits can motivate other team members, thereby
facilitating innovation. In other words, teamwork and individual enterprise can operate
synergistically to bring about innovation.
We must be especiaUy careful not to understate the role of teamwork in scientific innovation,
especially today. Important scientific innovations of the previous millennium might very well
95
have been products of the epiphanies and obsessions of individual geniuses. When we think
of the process of inventing something great we naturally conjure up a vision of the lone
inventor hidden away in a laboratory for months on end, in dogged pursuit of a breakthrough.
And this image is not entirely without empirical support. For example, Thomas Edison’s early
innovations--including the light bulb, the television, and the phonograph--came about in
relative isolation, and solely through his individual persistence and commitment.
However, in today’s world, sdentific innovation requires both considerable capital and
extensive teams of researchers. Admittedly, in all likelihood we will continue to encounter the
exceptional case---~ke Hewlett and Packard, or Jobs and Wozniak, whose innovations sprang
from two-man operations. But for the most part, scientific breakthroughs today typically occur
only after years of trial-and-error by large research teams. Even Thomas Edison relied more
and more on a team of researchers to develop new innovadons as his career progressed.Thus the statement flies in the face of how most modern scientific innovations actually come
about today.
To sum up, I agree that, when it comes to the world of business, true innovation is possible
only through the imagination of the individual visionary, and his or her commitment to see the
vision through to its fruition. However, when it comes to scientific innovation, yesterday’s
enterprising individuals have yielded to today’s cooperative research teams--a trend that will
no doubt continue as scientific research becomes an increasingly expensive and complex
undertaking.
Issue 87
"The study of an academic discipline alters the way we perceive the world. After studying the
discipline, we see the same world as before, but with different eyes."
The speaker maintains that the function of art is to "upset" while the function of science is to
"reassure," and that it is in these functions that the value of each lies. In my view, the speaker
unfairly generalizes about the function and value of art, while completely missing the point
about the function and value of science.
Consider first the intent and effect of art. In many cases artists set about to reassure, not to
upset. Consider the frescos of Fra Angelico and others monks and nuns of the late medieval
period, who sought primarily through their representations of the Madonna and Child to
reassure and be reassured about the messages of Christian redemption and salvation. Or
consider the paintings of impressionist and realist painters of the late 19th Century. Despite the
sharp contrast in the techniques employed by these two schools, in both genres we find
soothing, genteel, pastoral themes and images---certainly nothing to upset the viewer.In other cases, artists set about to upset. For example, the painters and sculptors of the
Renaissance period, like the artists who preceded them, approached their art as a form of
worship. Yet Renaissance art focuses on other Christian images and themes--especially those
involving the crucifxiion and apocalyptic notions of judgment and damnation--which are clearly
"upsetting" and disconcerting, and clearly not reassuring. Or consider the works of two
important 20th-Century artists; few would argue that the surrealistic images by Salvador Dali or
the jarring, splashy murals by abstract painter Jackson Pollock serve to "upset," or at the very
least disquiet, the viewer on a visceral level.
96
When it comes to the function and value of science, in my view the speaker’s assertion is
simply wrongheaded. The final objective of science, in my view, is to discover truths about our
world, our universe, and ourselves. Sometimes these discoveries serve to reassure, and other
times they serve to upset. For example, many would consider reassuring the various laws and
principles of physics which provide unifying explanations for what we observe in the physical
world. These principles provide a reassuring sense of order, even simplicity, to an otherwise
mysterious and perplexing world.
On the other hand, many scientific discoveries have dearly "upset" conventional notions
about the physical world and the universe. The notions of a sun-centered universe, that
humans evolved from lower primate forms, and that time is relative to space and motion, are
all disquieting notions to anyone whose belief system depends on contrary assumptions. And
more recently, researchers have discovered that many behavioral traits are functions of
individual neurological brain structure, determined at birth. This notion has "upset" many
professionals in fields such as behavioral psychology, criminology, mental health, and law,
whose work is predicated on the notion that undesirable human behavior can be
changed--through various means of reform and behavior modification.