Creative mind; The research scientist

Why the Lowell Institute cooperative broadcasting Council President John C.. A research scientist as creative as a number nine in the National Association of educational broadcasters Siri is the creative mind for use by WGBH FM in Boston under a grant from the Educational Television Radio Center. These conversations explore the creative process as it pertains to the American artist and scientist in the 20th century. And here is our host and commentator for the creative mind. Lyman Bryson. Our conversation with Mr. Sheehan the research scientist I suppose one might call him an applied saddest in the sense that in his work he tries to solve the problems of a practical nature in medicine with the application of scientific theories scientific discoveries that have been made by other

men. This doesn't limit his work but this is what he has done most notably he raises a moral question more profoundly than any other thinker has done. We tend to blame the people who are at the end of a process. We tend to say that the man who made the atom bomb are responsible for all the destructive menace that there is in that forgetting that they were only the last people in a long line of investigators who discovered nuclear fission and the structure of matter and so on and made this possible. We blame the last man of course at the same time we credit the last man to. We tend to give all the credit for polio vaccine Dr. Salk Arlo himself has protested against us forgetting the long line of men and women investigators who made what he did. Possible. This is partly because of the limits of our understanding and scientific work. But it's also a sign of a greater interest in the tangible and practical aspects of science.

Friend of mine who collects sidewalk and and cab drivers philosophy at the time that the atom bomb was first announced as the driver in New York what he thought now professors and the drivers said oh well these were the working professors not the talking professors. And Mr. Sheehan is a working professor in the sense that he tackles problems the great problem of the synthesis of penicillin was one of the things to which he contributed a large part of the success and he looks at this problem from the standpoint of somebody who is working on. Well he's trying to answer problems of how to do something rather than the problems of how to know something. So perhaps the rough judgment that we make is one that he wouldn't object to. He raises the question himself that I've just been talking about only in a slightly different form he's asked what's the responsibility society of the scientist and he replies the responsibility of a scientist is to his

science. The responsibility of a scientist is to find out the truth and let the chips fall where they may. I wouldn't be one to argue that point against Mr. Sharon. Science couldn't be much use to mankind unless its workers were free to be loyal to their own ideal of truth. But I think this depends on a strong faith that all knowledge is in the long run good for us. The faith that I share a belief that man extends his knowledge of the nature of the world and of himself in the long run it will be a better world and he will be a better man. Not everybody in the world believes that there are those in places of power now as there always have been who think that the truth ought to be labeled laid out and discreet spoonfuls to the trusting public by those in authority. In a free self-governing country like ours we all have a right to an opinion on that point. Mr Sheehan also raises the question as to what we mean by the very carelessly used term the scientific method. He implies that there is a

certain attitude of mind. He agrees with other scientists in this. A certain combination of character and skill and training which enables the solders to do his creative work. And he points out that this kind of work is a continuum from the most theoretical to the most practical. The theoretical scientist finds an answer to a question of knowing the applied scientist if we can use that term in connection with Mr Sheehan finds the answer to a question of doing but they both work by the same method. It doesn't make much difference I suppose how this method is defined. As long as we realize that in the opinion of most scientists. The way of working is more important than the amount of knowledge. It may even be better sometimes for an experimenter not to know what other people have done a lot. This is rather unusual. Generally he can be saved a good deal of false motion and duplications by knowing about the work of his predecessors and his

competitors but he must know how to work and this is important in the thinking that we've been doing about the creative man because how to work is something that can in a measure be taught. Now no teaching can give a young person a good man and a firm memory capacity to manage symbols. But you can teach habits of industry. You can train alertness and ways of working can be explicitly taught. This is immensely important in a civilization like ours because if it isn't true if you can't teach how to work in science then all of our present agitation about improving our education along the lines of scientific investigation and technological improvement are just a few Teletech scientists have to be born of course but also they have to be made and they can be. Scientific thinkers disagree somewhat among themselves as to the extent to which an individual personality can be expressed in their kind of work. Mr. Shane is quite firm about this. He thinks that there is an art

of physics just as in his own field there's an art of organic chemistry meaning that the touch of the master can be seen in the work no matter whether it be art or science. But there's not much danger that any person will ever exploit himself too much in science because not only is it impersonal in its nature in its in its kind of truth but also the scientist tends to be a little frightened by what he sees. Like Pascal he's frightened by the vastness of space even though as in the case of HARLOW shop play he's one of those who has led us for the shortest step into space. Or he may be frightened by the littleness of things which is where Mr. Sheahan works not with the infinitely vast but with the infinitely small bits of matter. Mr. Stone is a scientist however who in all these things sees a close parallel between the creative mind in science and the creative mind in art.

Or yes at least I would say that they have a good deal in common. One of the popular misconceptions is that science is simply completely logic that all the conclusions follow. And there was a bully from the situation from any known data. There is a very real part in science for something from the individual scientist to be added which is not apparent or inherent in the situation. In other words there is a considerable part for what might be called art in science in which the individual is able to express some of his own personality. Find an outlet for his artistic impulses and this is a very much under-rated role of science. For example one may hear the opinion expressed that science teaching of science should be balanced off against the

teaching of so much art humanities. And although I certainly hold this view in part I would like to point out that in the pursuit of science itself especially at the higher levels there is very much in common with what we understand and the other creative arts are endeavors and other ways we can describe the art of organic chemistry or the art of. Well all of science or all of human endeavor perhaps can be divided into two types. One the purely logical and the other. The art or the personality involved. The latter would call for more intuition more imagination. The first part and its extreme at least could possibly be handled by a machine. The second part presumably never could. Here's an element of creativity that seems to be

common to a great many artistic creators I wonder if it's true of scientists too. We've talked in this series to a number of I think people who said that they felt that perhaps a compulsion or necessity is too strong a word but a real urge to express the ideas that occur to them. Not just having the ideas but having to express them. Is that true in science. Well again I would say that it is true in part one will hear of a problem that seems so fascinating that he would like to go right into the library and right into the laboratory to work on it to contribute to it. There are some problems which when one is in progress on them he feels real emotional satisfaction and particularly if he is able to achieve a certain degree of success. Us away from the science or the laboratory for any period of time he often feels a very real urge to get back in and contribute in some way.

When I hear it here is another angle toward that same question and I'm a writer as I have been known to say that they didn't know what they were going to write until it was written. They didn't know what the book was about and delayed written it in that they in the act of writing discover something about themselves learn something about themselves as well as about as well as expressing their ideas that apply to here. Yes to some extent again. There certainly is an element of what might be described as the discovery in scientific creation. Certainly in the sense that when one is completed the project he realizes that everything that's that ensued and this problem has suited him in every respect and I suppose from a psychological point of view this is a feeling of success that reinforces his own feelings and makes him feel that he has contributed something. And I don't mean to the world but perhaps to himself also.

Do scientists ideas come to him and or that ill used and overworked word inspiration flashes of inspiration ideas suddenly pop into his mind. Well I'm going to make a generality about that. Yes sometimes they do. You try to go as far as possible by your only logical thinking. But in any difficult problem there reaches a point where one can go no further and by straight logic at least it is not apparent how one can then do so. Someone has commented that the scientist the best scientist must be able to reach the right conclusions on the basis of inadequate information and data that is where this flash of inspiration might conceivably come in or perhaps even intuition or or intuition something that in retrospect you you can argue was completely logical and yet it worked. Yet yet it worked at least in a percentage of the cases. How

good how high that percentage is and varies with the individual and perhaps with good fortune. Does the particular science that you work in that you're trained in condition the way you think I mean does for example a physicist think in different thought patterns from those that you use as an organic chemist. Well certainly a theoretical physicist thinks differently from an experimental organic chemist which I like to classify myself. However there are theoretical chemists whose thinking must be very similar to that of a theoretical physicist. And similarly there are experimental physicists who would have a good deal in common with with my own approach to the to the field in other words and all of the sciences. There are these these two extreme approaches one of the purely pencil and paper one of coordinating data or perhaps trying to extrapolate the data and the other trying to design experiments which Well

uncover new principles and furnish new data and furnish new data for the theoretical people to interpret because found Trey do most impressions the experimentalist is usually well ahead of them. They're radical So how much influence does a sort of education that you get have on your thinking process. Is it possible to to stifle. A thinking process so that creative impulse which might have been there doesn't work out by restricting education. Well there are many who feel that an outstanding person cannot be stifled or at least not easily although I must confess that some educational systems make a real attempt to do this. That is probably the middle group or the middle upper group who are most responsive to the type of training which they receive. And in other words there are many just below the first few percentiles who could contribute at a very

high level if they have an excellent educational background. However. Unfortunate as it may be in many sciences there is such elaborate background of what might be called vocabulary in terms of generalizations which have been derided for much work previously and this must be learned in some way. At least the student must be exposed to it and the real trick is to balance off these two factors getting across the basic information the tools so to speak. But you will need for his train but not to stifle whatever creative powers he may have. And very important to get him through early so that he may start contributing when he is still very young. Re the next question then I for years enough to train a scientist so that he can be a creative scientist.

I know I should say that they probably are not. It's notable now that our research scientists almost always hold a doctorate degree. So this would mean a minimum of perhaps seven years and the first four years. They're perhaps analogous to the pre medical course of the physician and then the graduate school is where these creative abilities are to be brought out. Do your ideas come to you in a scientific field as they do and some of the artistic LEOs in which they occur in groups that are associated with one one germ of an idea will suggest another which will suggest another and you get this group of associated ideas. Yes this is this often happens and one one other occurrence is that sometimes all the pieces well fall together in a magical way just as no one dumped all the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle on the floor and they all fell into the

correct Haueter and finding the keystone of the arginine in the keystone of York so to speak and all of a sudden they complete synthetic root for example becomes clear of them all is concerned is just what order and how one should go at it. And all of the sudden it seems to gel. Sake of clarity what do you mean by a synthetic route. Well I found my own special day in science and thought again in chemistry in which we build up relatively complicated molecules combinations of atoms. My series of steps consecutive steps sometimes as 30 or more and each of these stages is a chance for success or failure and one has to consider what order one should go up these steps. This molecule has several sometimes four or five potentially reactive sights and one must keep the other foresights out of Mr. employee rights on any desired flight.

I do see what you mean enough. Do you ever feel the impulse to work in a particular area even when there is no specific problem in front of you. As I've heard one or two people say who are painters I don't know what I'm going to paint but I feel like meeting. Well you don't. Call skipping along main main right well and start research without trying to solve any specific problem. You may for example have noted some experimental observation that seems not to fall into the usual generalizations and he would just like to find out a little more about this and perhaps you know more about it. And this in some instances the use of lead to major breakthroughs in science but the person was not really trying to solve a problem and since he was trying to cure some disease for example by developing better fabric he was just puzzled by this seeming anomaly. Yeah Lytle is the fact that you're essentially depended on on equipment and

materials and so forth. By comparison the musician and x ray composes symphony without a musical instrument around him he can compose in his mind. Is that possible in science or I do you are you more dependent on equipment and material and so forth. Well presumably where they are more dependent than the musician is in the past one could contribute a great deal with very simple equipment. And this is still true in many branches of science and it has been true in theoretical from the theoretical approach but now many of the theoretical people need very elaborate calculating machines for handling the matter and certainly the physicists feel they're completely. Baron of equipment if they don't have 10 million dollars worth of atoms making machines even the organic chemist now needs quite an array of machines to determine structure for example. But in synthesis relatively simple equipment still so fine

since it's still something you know at the experimental level. And some of the aspects of craftsmanship or the art of physical art such as a surge in mind for example. Let's get from the more general questions into some slightly more specific ones about your own field of synthetic organic chemistry. In the first one is a very simple question and it may seem a little naive of me but I'll ask it anyway out of curiosity. That is why I synthesize. While I can answer for myself and I think I'm answering for most scientists are not near yet a chemist. First of all for the same reason that other people like to climb high mountains. There is real adventure challenger dramma tackling a problem which is the operant difficulty and it's not only a challenge at the intellectual level but also at the emotional

level. And then there are of course more practical reasons insofar as people who are not in the sciences are going there. Yes it is true that our modern world has benefited a great deal from the synthetic or Yannick chemist in the practical. Thank you and drugs new insecticides new text olds new paints all sorts of well it really isn't it also true that in our century which has seen so much of war in which great areas of the world were cut off from from normal trade. That we've been able to supply ourselves with materials they wouldn't otherwise have. Yes that is certainly a grammar example and that is one should point out that the synthetic or again a chemist has altered the economics of the world in a very profound banking law for example this rubber has made a considerable difference in rubber growing Ariens earlier in the past century. The

synthesis of such dies as a lizard in chains the economics of India and other other countries depend upon the growing of these natural products. But the present function of the synthetic organic chemist is to create new materials and improved ones. Not necessarily just to compete with nature but to give us something which for our own purposes is superior. Well I understand that that's true of your most recent accomplishment the sense this is a fantasy island isn't it isn't they synthetic penicillin essentially a new penicillin. Doesn't that have different qualities from the natural. Yes by our synthetic roots we not only prepared the pan as one of the penicillin ins. Made by fermentation then used clinically at the present time but the method permits the synthesis of a number of variants of the molecule which we hope will have advantages from a medical standpoint. Already about 12 new penicillin none of which can be

prepared by the fermentation of the natural method. And these are made possible by the synthetic process. Yes these are made possible by the by the synthetic methods which were developed in our laboratory and these new methods will perhaps treat specific illnesses or. Well that is one of the hopes that I would have a so-called broader spread spectrum that it might act on certain diseases which are not sensitive to penicillin at the present time for example typhoid fever or perhaps the major contribution would be that it would work on these sophisticated microorganisms which have become resistant to the natural and of bionics. How do you choose a research problem. What is your approach or your. Attitude in selecting a problem for you considered. Well in my own case I'm now somewhat specialized in say synthetic or getting chemists so I simply cast about for

a molecule so I usually have some biological importance or some possible medical significance which I look to be interesting to make the same sense that certain type of mountain might be interesting to climb or a chess problem would be interesting to solve. One has to take into account certain practical considerations and is in the laboratory properly equipped and staff to handle a problem of that magnitude and reasonable period of time. It's a little difficult to bring in the emotional feeling except in certain extreme cases and the kind of skill and a stimulus I thought that that problem had most everything. Are you ever commissioned to do a particular piece of research. You gotta have a request from MIT for example or from an outside firm to undertake a particular problem that they're interested in solving.

Oh once in a while one is approached with such a suggestion usually this is rejected especially. If it's directed toward a very utilitarian type of problem the only problems which I undertake and I think this is true for nearly everyone and your schools are problems in which the investigator is allowed a great deal of latitude and has real scientific interest to it. I have one more question related to scientific research and again it may sound like a rather naive question but I think it's an important one and that is when do you stop. Well that is indeed a difficult problem. There are many research topics which one would like to discontinue. And if one continues too long on an unproductive line there instant course a good bit of waste. As you know the second best poker hand is the most expensive one there.

That's right we're going to drop out of the game very very very early in the rather rather exceptional one perhaps with our penicillin project which thought that we're just going to stay with the Parian there are a few general question that I like to ask you regarding the a place of creative scientist and his society and ideas where is the area where a scientist feels he is. Greatest responsibility is it to a society or to a science. Well I don't know that they're incompatible and it's an either or situation. I would say that the center's greatest responsibility is to do the best science which he knows how to find out the truth. And you can more than find out the truth to find the place in which he can contribute to the greatest Anniyan simply has to let the chips fall where they may. Of course it is true that

depending upon which problem or what field one is working in one can think that you are either benefiting or perhaps in a few cases. One might argue that temporarily at least mankind may suffer just a bit from some observation but it is very difficult for the scientist to do so like this problem. On that basis have you any prediction that you can give us as to what sort of problems you'll be working on in the future. Well I'll continue to work on a synthesis model that development of new experimental methods I'm particularly interested in methods which operate under very mild conditions and so-called simulated physiological simplicities which work in egregious systems not too different from living processes. You may try the synthesis of one or more other antibiotics that's fine

if the old particularly intriguing there are the other is as difficult of solution is as I said unless Well some of them are OK to tell yet they may and some of them may well be very difficult but their difficulty will be of a different type from that of penicillin. And although I could well be prejudiced on this matter I think Bennett's own notes tell me the most interesting of the problems. He pointed with John C. Sheehan the research scientist has created our conversation number nine in a series exploring the creative process as it pertains to the American artist and scientist in the 20th century. Host for the creative mind Lyman Bryson producer for the series Jackie Summerfield with William cavernous and Nadia Eisenberg as production associates next week. Walter Piston the composer as creator of the creative mind is produced and recorded

by WGBH FM in Boston. Well the National Association of educational broadcasters under a grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center. This program was distributed by the National Education all radio network.