Strong correlations

June 26, 2009

In this month’s issue of Physics World there is and article I wrote with Chris Hooley on strong correlations:

J. Quintanilla & C. Hooley,
The strong-correlations puzzle,
Physics World 22, 32-37 (June 2009)
[ online excerpt; complete print version available here ].

What we basically tried to do is explain what is meant by that term, putting it in a historical context and explaining the role that experiments with ultra-cold atoms, as opposed to “traditional” materials, can play in disentangling the mysteries. We placed a lot of emphasis on the model that John Hubbard (pictured) invented here, in the Harwell campus, in the early sixties, and on neutron scattering, which was responsible for the genesis of that model and is still producing many of the main puzzles today. Polite comments and enlightening  criticism are certainly most welcome.

(By the way, the same issue of Physics World contains Doug Natelson’s article on single-molecule electronics – as he already informed his blog readers – much more promtly than I have, it has to be said!)

Advertisements

Eugenie Reich’s take on the Schön affair

June 19, 2009

Last month’s issue of Physics World contains an article by Eugenie Reich on the Schön affair. It is an edited excerpt of the book on the same topic that she has been working hard on for the last few years. I know that because she was already at it when I met her in Vienna in 2005.

Here is a quote that I guess sums up what the author has concluded about the celebrated self-correction properties of science:

The self-correcting process happened, but it was haphazard and disorganized, with a lot of self-doubt along the way. In comparison with the archetypal picture of scientists as an army of self-correctors marching in an organized way towards the truth, this was more of a guerrilla war.

I think Reich’s book will make compulsory reading for all physicists – particularly those involved in condensed matter research. After all, the unmasking of Hendrik Schön relied, according to the author, on the inspired actions of a few individuals who had to go, initially, against the mainstream. Our obligation
as researchers is not only not to commit fraud ourselves, but also to be vigilant about what our colleagues are doing – our collaborators and those whose works we cite in our own papers.

One interesting aspect of the Schön affair is that it happened, as Eugenie mentions, at a time when employees at Bell labs were subject to a lot of pressure. This brings to my mind the additional responsibilities of managers of research organisations to create the conditions under which honest, intelligent research thrives and ‘bullshitting’ opportunists have a hard time. This is particularly relevant to organizations like national or industrial laboratories that are outside of academia, as in them managers wield a lot more power than in universities. It seems that just the opposite was happening in Bell labs at the time of Hendrik Schön’s deceptions.

Greg Kochanski wrote a very interesting article on the way the performance review process worked at Bell labs. He emphasized how the positive effects of this management instrument could turn into the very opposite in times of difficulty – like those being experienced while Schön was working there. Coincidentally (or not?), Kochanski has a blog post on a closely related topic this month. He ventures that

There is a good argument to be made that it is the extreme level of competition in science that drives a lot of fraud and bad behaviour.  And it drives a lot of the self-delusion, too.  It’s much easier to, somehow, never get around to making those potentially embarassing checks of your results if you are in a hurry and under pressure.

Somehow it does not seem entirely improbable, but if so it is not devoid of irony. It would suggest that scientists lacking job security as well as moral fiber would be deliberately sloppy in their research in order to hang on to scientific careers whose meaning is completely lost once their publications can no longer be trusted. I guess it is possible: some people don’t know when to give up. On the other hand, Hendrik Schön seems to have been aiming much higher: he wanted not only to survive, but indeed to obtain the highest accolades… I guess there is only so much one can understand about the mind of scientists engaging in such behaviours.