Believing in Computer Science

It’s not every day that I can say that I agree with Bertrand Meyer, but today is an exception. Meyer has written an opinion piece in the current issue of C.ACM about science funding that I think is worth amplifying. His main point is that funding agencies, principally the NSF and the ERC, are constantly pushing for “revolutionary” research, at the expense of “evolutionary” research. Yet we all (including the funding agencies) know full well that, in almost every case, real progress is made by making seemingly small advances on what is already known, and that whether a body of research is revolutionary or not can only be assessed with considerable hindsight. Meyer cites the example of Hoare’s formulation of his logic of programs, which was at the time a relatively small increment on Floyd’s method for proving properties of programs. For all his brilliance, Hoare didn’t just invent this stuff out of thin air, he built on and improved upon the work that had gone before, as of course have hundreds of others built on his in turn. This all goes without saying, or ought to, but as Meyer points out, we computer scientists are constantly bombarded with direct and indirect exhortations to abandon all that has gone before, and to make promises that no one can honestly keep.

Meyer’s rallying cry is for incrementalism. It’s a tough row to hoe. Who could possibly argue against fostering earth-shattering research that breaks new ground and summarily refutes all that has gone before? And who could possibly defend work that is obviously just another slice of the same salami, perhaps with a bit of mustard this time? And yet what he says is obviously true. Funding agencies routinely beg the very question under consideration by stipulating a priori that there is something wrong with a field, and that an entirely new approach is required. With all due respect to the people involved, I would say that calls such as these are both ill-informed and outrageously arrogant.

But where does this attitude come from? Meyer cites “market envy” as one particularly powerful influence. Funding agencies wish to see themselves as analogous to venture capitalists investing in the next big thing, losing track of the fundamental differences between basic research and product development. (We see this sort of nonsense all the time in national politics; there is always a constituency for the absurd proposition that a government should be run like a business, as if there were any similarity at all between the two. What they really mean is, turn the government’s money over to business, but that can’t be said too loudly for fear that people will catch on.)

Another influence, which Meyer doesn’t mention, seems to be a long-standing problem in computer science. It seems to me that many researchers who move into political and administrative roles are either bored with, or do not believe in, computer science as an academic discipline. Their own research area is, or maybe always was, boring, or has been obviated by technological developments or scientific advances. So they move into politics, perhaps carrying a sense that there is something wrong with the field that can only be corrected by radical surgery. They then demand that researchers do what they themselves never did in their own careers, kicking the ladder out from behind them.

From this somewhat contentious premise, much follows. The constant implication, stated and unstated, that CS research is not worth doing for its own sake. The emphasis on interdisciplinarity as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. The emphasis on applications to other disciplines being more important than CS itself. The sense that “broader impacts” are far more important than the “innovative claims” (the actual work) in a research proposal.

Seen from this perspective, Meyer’s position is much more easily defensible. When funding agencies are talking about “breakthroughs” and “paradigm shifts”, what they really mean is “anything but computer science”. When Meyer talks about incrementalism, what he really means is “computer science is worth doing for its own sake”.

And I, for once, agree with him.


6 Responses to Believing in Computer Science

  1. Brian Hurt says:

    I wonder how much of this demand for revolutionary change comes from the commercial world’s need to sell software? One of the problems with selling software (in the old style, shrink wrap model) was the need to convince customers to stop using the old software in favor of buying new software. It’s not like software wore out or broke down or anything. So the model of bi-annual revolutions was adopted- each new release was touted as being completely new and revolutionary. This bled into the culture, in stark contradiction to the fact that most software development (even in the commercial world) is, in fact, evolutionary not revolutionary. You take (more or less) working code and make incremental changes- add a feature here, remove a bug there, and so on.

  2. pindaroi says:

    Did you mean amplifying in the second sentence?

    Wonderful exposition of polarity in the following post.

  3. Another problem may be that funding levels in all areas of research have plummeted (the payline in, say, NIH funded research is down many percentage points over the last fifteen years). When money gets tight, people spend more on lottery tickets.

    The irony about funding agencies playing venture capitalist is that the venture capitalists have had such a lousy track record in actually funding breakthroughs. Have you noticed what venture capitalists are actually funding these days? I think Scott Adams did a pretty good job summing up the state of venture capital:

    Yes, that’s definitely the model we want to push forward the field.

  4. hakatpat says:

    “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
    – Isaac Newton

  5. Derek Dreyer says:

    Great piece — I totally agree with Meyer as well. Indeed, I have argued as much in private for some time, and I know many who feel the same frustration. I’ve grown quite tired of the perennial complaints about how our existing conferences, journals, what have you, are prejudiced towards incremental research, as if it’s something to be shunned in favor of half-assed quirky revolutionary ideas that don’t work. Research is inherently incremental, and there’s no shame in it — rather, the *evolution* (as you put it) of great ideas is what makes research so exciting, to me at least.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: