FYI France: Grandes Ecoles Symposium, May 27-30 -- part 3 of 3 The next speaker, German Nobel prizewinner Rudolf Mossbauer, could not have been better - chosen as a foil to the subdued and generalist monk who preceded him: one senses at least an idea of drama in the design of the session, on the part perhaps of Krause, or others. Mossbauer's message was as simple as was that of Dom Hugues, but the German was far more direct: "No more humanities, no more social science, no more applied science, forget 'business and management'... laboratories need less generalism and better hard training and quality!" There is a "noblesse oblige" which accompanies the receipt of a Nobel. At Berkeley this takes the form of mundane things: one Nobelist there joked that, "At last I can get a central - campus car parking permit!" But all Nobelists have been known to speak their minds, openly and freely and on any occasion and on nearly any subject: and with impunity -- there are a few heights reached which are beyond reproach for almost anything. I tackled Mossbauer later, as a few others did immediately during the session (including one student - observer, who pointed out to the professor that in today's economy a student needs training for "more than just one job"). To my great surprise, as austere and forbidding as he seems on the platform, Mossbauer is very cordial and accommodating and enthusiastic in person. Yes, he does think that science needs more rigor, Mossbauer says, and no he would not modify what he had said on the stand. German education offers a "technology - hostile" environment today, Mossbauer asserts, because it has too many interfering rules, regulations, bureaucrats, and lawyers. "You in the US cannot imagine", he insists, "what we in German education have had to put up with since 1968 -- quality is dropping, enrollment is dropping, we have more professors than students". Krause tried to get him to concede, during the session, that German universities' arcane and restrictive admission procedures have something to do with it, but Mossbauer demurred: "The basic problem," he insists, "is that there is too much politics". Francesco di Castri, of the CNRS and UNESCO, differed with Mossbauer. There is not a single, ie. economic, globalization, he says, but a very complex one occurring in several spheres: technical, information - oriented, even biological -- consider the problems of evolving gene pools for the latter, he suggests. Di Castri feels that not only is a more broad - based humanistic education needed, but some inclusion of Asia now must be made in discussions, and some consideration of any who will be left out of an information - based society. Introducing the morning's second panel, moderator Krause said that he believes there has been a demise of old global trading patterns and the emergence of a singular global technology: "What is it?" he wondered, "And who will finance it?" Former French Minister of Research Pierre Aigrand gave very entertaining and illuminating answers. With a nod to Dom Hugues, he noted Santayana's comment that, "a man who has forgotten his ends and redoubles his efforts has become a fanatic". The question of what / who will determine these ends is paramount, Aigrand contends: administration, rules, and laws do this, he reminded us. Stephen Cohen put the question on a very practical level. "Companies don't finance 'R&D'," he said, "Companies finance 'D'. Someone else has to do the 'R'." This "someone else" used to be the national governments. Now this financing has become diffuse, and certainly unregulated. One certain thing remains, though, according to Cohen: "If left solely to a competitive market, there will be no 'R' / research". Cohen paraphrased Schumpeter: "We put brakes on a car so that it can go faster, not slower": we must re - think support and regulation. Krause commented that an historical change has contributed much to support Cohen's idea: the 70's and 80's were eras of high prosperity, he reminded us, but the 90's are an era of unemployment, and of outright recession in places such as Germany -- changed approaches, such as those advocated by Cohen, are mandated by a changed reality. Josef Rembser called for, "free, non - directed, non - technology - specific research", observing that, after all, "today's technology will change". His German - American Academic Council is designed to foster cooperation in such a direction, he says. Krause also commented, at this point, that "Asia" really should be included to contribute to such efforts. UC Berkeley's Charles Shank said that he thinks that "governments do a poor job of creating wealth, although a good job of redistributing it", Krause pointing out that this represents a distinctly - American point of view. Kenneth Keller of the US Council on Foreign Relations identified, 1) financial support of science and technology, 2) defining the global technical system, and, 3) redefining the role of government in all this, as being primary challenges. Since the demise of the unifying Cold War, differing national values have emerged, Keller observes, on issues such as the environment, hormones, tuna / dolphin hunting, nuclear power, and drug approval. "Protectionism grows from differences," Keller warns: he believes that the scientific community must push for standards, themselves an international unifying force. Bertrand Schneider, current Secretary - General of the Club of Rome -- they published the highly - influential "The Limits to Growth" in the early 70's -- noted that "3/4 of the world is absent from this Symposium". Of this recurring issue see more below. He wonders when technology globalization really will become a reality, and, when it does, whether both the rich and the poor will be included? 5.0 Conclusions? Conclusions which might be drawn from such a wide - ranging and international Symposium are many. There was much which was very technical. These people all were specialists, some of them world - famous in their particular arcane specialty, and none of the attendees shied from debate about technical details. I sat through several fascinating fights in which I was much out of my personal depth. Arguments about whether or not to bio - engineer milk production. A slide which purported to show both the beginning and end of the universe, and even, "where we are now". There were dramatic confrontations -- I gather that these are long - standing, but they still spark wonderfully -- between the "big science" espoused by a theoretical physicist, and the "small science" called for by an optometrist. "On behalf of human eyes everywhere", I practically could hear the latter saying, "who needs physics when we can't see?" "...But who knows what breakthroughs in sight and other things may one day stem from 'big' physics?", came through clearly as the message of the other. I could hear the funding pies being sliced up, in Paris and Washington D.C., as the two of them argued. There was a wonderful moment in the computer lab when the French technical staff surprised one of the Americans who had "hacked" their elaborate ATM setup so that he could read his email. "But it was just sitting there, and the other machines are not working," he insisted; "But that is not what this one is for!", the technicians protested. There even was some tough talk about tomatoes. It seems that we in the US "bio - engineer" ours, and that the Europeans don't theirs. A leading Berkeley researcher defended the US meddling with nature. She said that California tomatos had been bred to bounce off the back of a truck and back in again without being hurt, but had lost their flavor in the process, and that the engineering simply had put a little taste back in. Outraged Europeans felt that they were on "Nature's" side. All this tomato problem frankly was news to me. The old international trader in me sensed a financial / import - export issue lurking in here somewhere. Having eaten California tomatoes myself for many decades, I confess that I have been blissfully unaware of the issue: I will view all tomatoes -- Californian and European -- a little more suspiciously, if a little more knowledgeably, from now on. But the many fascinating details were not what have made this Symposium significant, the generalities have: 1) The European questions and presentations, even in technical areas, nearly always have concerned decision - making structure and authority. Those of the Americans nearly never. Krause alluded to this in his reaction to Charles Shank: Europeans look to -- perhaps have been forced by historical circumstance to look to -- their governments for far more than Americans do. 2) The unease with which the Europeans eye one another -- the French the Germans, the Germans the British, the British the Spaniards, all of these the Czech and the Hungarian and they in turn the rest -- has been palpable and striking, to this US observer. Some of the best floor fights have taken place between Americans themselves. But these have been over technical issues, or the results of fun rivalries: such as MIT and Berkeley occasionally teasing one another -- or the UC Berkeley Chancellor's easy reference, at one point, to the little rival school at a place called "Stanford" which just might, he allowed, know a bit about these things. The more serious issue, surfacing occasionally in formal presentations and more frequently after hours and in the "corridor chat", was whether certain Europeans trust other Europeans -- qua Europeans -- even in these scientific and technical areas. A point made forcefully several times -- Berkeley student Rose - Marie Haas said in her Day 3 presentation that it is supported by research -- was that while cooperative research across disciplines works, cooperation between academic researchers and commercial firms works poorly if at all. This appears to be particularly true in Europe. How much more difficult is cooperation made if national suspicions intrude as well. One clearly has the impression -- even after decades of work on this -- of national unity on the US side but of persistent international fragmentation among the Europeans. I am a great admirer of European variety. But I also feel privileged to have been admitted to their Symposium's effort to, among other things, bridge this basic gap. 3) "Shouldn't We Invite the Asians Next Time?" The speaker from the Club of Rome made the point forthrightly that he saw no representatives of Japan or the rest of Asia in the audience or on the podium, and that they really should be present now in any discussion of "global" society and technology. Several other speakers alluded to this Asian absence, throughout the three days. Even in highly technical areas, the subject of Asian advances was raised. MIT's Litster says that physics work in India which he has seen personally is not only interesting but is being pursued at world - class research levels, and really ought to be considered. UC Berkeley's Tien offered the Europeans a toast at the final day's luncheon. He has a personal interest in all three, he says -- his own background in Asia, his own interest in Europe, and his work in the US -- and he long has dreamed of providing links which would draw all three more together. If it truly is of interest to the Europeans, he says, he would be happy to assist in including the Asians in future discussions. The world is a shrinking place, as even the current Symposium's success proves, and we all would do well to learn more and more about each other, Tien concludes. It was Robert Louis Stevenson, I think, who called the Pacific Ocean, "The Eye of the Earth." My wife and I have children in California public schools, and can attest from personal experience to the increasing importance of Asia at least in our little local San Francisco world: our children's schoolmates are Asian immigrants, Asian business is becoming a bigger and bigger factor in the San Francisco economy, the languages which one hears spoken on the streets throughout California increasingly are Asian. This Symposium has provided a wonderful microcosm of much that is happening in US - European cooperation. If the French and the Europeans now are interested in seeing a microcosm of what is happening internationally with regard to Asia, they might do well to consider the US West Coast, as the Chancellor suggests. Such a multi - cultural occasion might be a mutually - beneficial undertaking for all parties: Vaclav Havel recently mused, "If Europe wishes... it can become a model for how different people can work together in peace without sacrificing any of their identity." XXX FYIFrance (sm)(tm) e - newsletter ISSN 1071 - 5916 * | FYIFrance (sm)(tm) is a monthly electronic newsletter, | published since 1992 as a small - scale, personal, | experiment, in the creation of large - scale | "information overload", by Jack Kessler. Any material / \ written by me which appears in FYIFrance may be ----- copied and used by anyone for any good purpose, so // \\ long as, a) they give me credit and show my e - mail --------- address and, b) it isn't going to make them money: if // \\ if it is going to make them money, they must get my permission in advance, and share some of the money which they get with me. Use of material written by others requires their permission. FYIFrance archives may be reached online at http://infolib.berkeley.edu , or via gopher to infolib.berkeley.edu 72 (path: 3. Electronic Journals (Library-Oriented)/ 6. FYIFrance/ or http://www.univ-rennes1.fr/LISTES/biblio-fr@univ-rennes1.fr/ (BIBLIO-FR econference archive), or gopher.well.sf.ca.us , or via telnet to a.cni.org , login brsuser (PACS / PACS-L econference archive). Suggestions, reactions, criticisms, praise, and poison - pen letters all will be gratefully received at kessler@well.sf.ca.us . Copyright 1992 by Jack Kessler, all rights reserved. XXX end