Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!star.cs.vu.nl!roelw From: roelw@cs.vu.nl (Wieringa j Roel) Newsgroups: comp.databases Subject: Re: Comment on the "Third-Generation Database System Manifesto" Message-ID: <7798@star.cs.vu.nl> Date: 1 Oct 90 13:38:43 GMT References: <30205@netnews.upenn.edu> <1990Sep28.173803.15043@odi.com> Sender: news@cs.vu.nl Distribution: comp Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam Lines: 62 In article <1990Sep28.173803.15043@odi.com> dlw@odi.com writes: > >In the real world, though, papers, especially those called >"manifestos" and "countermanifestos", and especially those co-authored >by academics of many different affiliations, end up being more than >just free debate, whether intentionally or not. The degree to which >such papers are believed and accepted can affect who gets research >funds, which theses are considered good enough to deserve a degree, >who gets tenure, and so on. I think it's possible that some of the >fuming may result from this aspect of the papers. If this is what >Masterson thinks is too bad, I agree, although I don't see what to >do about it. That is exactly the problem with these manifestos. Recently, John Maddox, chief editor of the journal Nature, visited The Netherlands to give a speech at a symposium held at the 40th anniversary of the major Dutch funding organization for pure scientific research, the NWO. He warned that the extremely high pressure to publish or perish can cause scientists to publish results too early and to be secretive about the results they have obtained so far. In addition, in sciences like biochemistry, commercially lucrative contracts sit just around the corner of the research laboratory, which does not foster open exchange of ideas either. The result is that people give press conferences of their discoveries before they are published in and tested by the scientific community, and secure patents before publication. Large press coverage may result in large funding. The pressures of funding and publication and the lure of commercial results do not foster a climate of open exchange of ideas in which people build upon the (acknowledged) results of their predecessors. Maddox reminded us of the fact that Newton stood upon the shoulders of giants. We do not want the rare researcher who is a genius to discover that there are only shoulders of cripples to stand on. Manifestos, Beach reports and reports from invitational NSF workshops are ostensively only about the objectively best definition of concepts and promising research directions. In addition to this, IMHO they must also be viewed as moves in a game of power and money: which projects get funded, who determines which projects are worth their money, and in general who has the clout to make his definition of what is the case and what should be the case stick. They may not be intended as such by their authors, but I think they cannot be seen in nisolation from the political (funding) dimension of science. Recently, I was in a workshop in Aigen, Austria, visited by European researchers from the database theory community. Someone suggested the name ``Moneyfesto'' for the kind of Manifesto now being published. Someone else pointed out that, just when Eastern Europe is abolishing the political system whose roots go back to the Communist Manifesto, we in the free West (and within the free West, in the heartland of freedom, scientific research), start publishing Manifestos about what Authorities deem to be the Truth. On a lighter note, a few months ago I was at an IFIP conference in Windermere, U.K., where Stonebraker presented the 3rd Generation DB Manifesto for the European research community. In my talk I proposed the Manifesto of Windermere: All Manifestos are Mere Wind. Hope to have offended no one, Roel