There always must be a beginning.
T There have been many information
revolutions since the dawn of time; the one most often referenced is the
printing of the Gutenberg Bible in the 15th century (1455).1
This achievement provided a solution to improve the dissemination
of information, but the dissemination and use of the technology lagged behind.
Fifty years after the printing of the famous Bible, only 200 presses using
that technology could be found on the European continent.2
It was two centuries later, in the 17th century, that
the first scientific journal – (Journal des Savan(t)s) - was
published in Paris (January 1665). The journal contained "details of
experiments in physics, chemistry, and other scientific discoveries."3
However, Mendel’s (1822-1884) breakthrough work in genetics in
the mid 19th century was lost to a generation because the right
people didn’t get the right information.4
One hundred and fifty years later, the 1990’s represented the
beginning of a new revolution in information communication -- one that feels
like it is proceeding at an exponential rate.
The level of information literacy among the population is at an
all-time high. It has been reported that 47% of all American households are
connected to the Web.5 This
level of information accessibility has raised not only the awareness of the
users but their expectations as well.
Digital Initiatives
• NSF – Digital libraries Initiative
• NASA Technical Report Server
• California Digital Library
• University of Maryland, Digital Library Research
Group
• Sun Site
• Chesapeake Information & Research Library
Alliance – Electronic Science Library
• Association of Research Libraries – Digital
Initiatives Database
• University of Illinois at Urbana – Champlain --
NSF/DARPA/NASA Digital Libraries Initiative
There are a number of initiatives underway designed to address the
need for more comprehensive and fluid access to scientific and technical
information.
I have listed a few of them. I
am certain that you individually could add significantly to this list.
The process that we are undertaking today and tomorrow is
reflective of our recognition of the great opportunities to accelerate
scientific communication and the scientific process.
The opportunity exists to create a more comprehensive
infrastructure for the physical sciences, providing access to information and
the tools for research never before considered in the history of scientific
inquiry.
The potential exists to create a new scientific awakening that
encompasses scientists and engineers, educators and students, consumers and
the public.
The bottom line is this -- much is going on in perhaps a less than
integrated fashion. I ask you only to consider the inherent opportunities.
III.
Library Tradition
Library
Tradition
• National Library of Medicine, 1836 (Legislated 1956)
• National Agricultural Library, 1862 (Legislated
1962)
• National Library of Education, 1994
• National Transportation Library, 1998
Most of us have grown-up in the library tradition. Libraries have
traditionally been viewed as the font of information.
The earliest supposed library dates back to the first half of the
3rd millennium BC.6 There
is much to be learned from a concept with such longevity about information use
and users that is applicable to the electronic information world we find
ourselves in.
It is interesting to note that 50% of the National Libraries within
the Executive Branch were created after 1993 as electronic access to
information was coming into its own. I
could suggest that the current electronic information revolution has made
their creation possible.
The National Library of Medicine and the National Agricultural
Library provide the greatest opportunity to examine how traditional library
institutions created prior to 20th century are transitioning into
the electronic era.
Kent Smith, of NLM, whose talk follows mine, will provide some
detail regarding this evolution/revolution.
The key to a successful library in this day and age from my point
of view is:
§
The ability to understand the needs of the user,
§
Being visionary regarding future user expectations,
§
Support intra and extramural R&D to improve the tools for
access, delivery and use.
I think that there are “lessons of success” from library
institutions such as the National Library of Medicine that are applicable to
the information infrastructure we are discussing.
IV.
Audience/Users
As
we consider the aspects of an Information Infrastructure for the Physical
Sciences we must consider who uses this information.
As
of 1996 there were over 3 million scientist and engineer jobs in the U.S.
It is projected that this number will grow to 4.4 million by 2006,
which is a 44% increase.7
As
science becomes increasingly interdisciplinary in nature, this large
contingent of scientists, engineers and others will require access to a
comprehensive, useable body of information related to the physical sciences.
Though
our primary user focus is scientists and engineers, one trap we find ourselves
falling into is that we think ONLY of scientists and engineers.
I
collected some usage statistics on a few of our scientific and technical
information (STI) tools. Though the results are not as discrete as one would
like, I felt that the representation of domains at a high level show the broad
demand for STI from all quarters.
I
think it is reasonable to say that usage patterns are surprising in the number
of .com .edu and .net users.
Of
the approximately 2 million searches the distribution of major domains is as
follows:
§
.net
9%
§
.mil
1%
§
.gov
13%
§
.edu
15%
§
.com
17%
§
international
19%
§
other
26% (Other includes
unknown, old style ARPANET, and non-profit
The
population of users maybe larger and more diverse than we have traditionally
considered, as a result of the information technology we are using today.
I
think it is reasonable for us to consider to what extent we are missing
opportunities to increase and promote an interdisciplinary view of science.
Science
And Math General Knowledge Achievement
Grade
12 -- 1998
| Science | Math |
||
| Sweden | 559 | Netherlands | 560 |
| Netherlands | 558 | Sweden | 552 |
| Iceland | 549 | Denmark | 547 |
| Norway | 544 | Switzerland | 540 |
| Canada | 532 | Iceland | 534 |
| New Zealand | 529 | Norway | 528 |
| Australia | 527 | France | 523 |
| Switzerland | 523 | New Zealand | 522 |
| Austria | 520 | Australia | 522 |
| Slovenia | 517 | Canada | 519 |
| Denmark | 509 | Austria | 518 |
| Germany | 497 | Slovenia | 512 |
| France | 487 | Germany | 495 |
| Czech Republic | 487 | Hungary | 483 |
| Russian Federation | 481 | Italy | 476 |
| United States | 480 | Russian Federation | 471 |
| Italy | 475 | Lithuania | 469 |
| Hungary | 471 | Czech Republic | 466 |
| Lithuania | 461 | United States | 461 |
Education represents our seed corn for a prosperous and secure
future.
Our
future scientists and engineers are being trained today.
In
the global economy of the 21st century, educators must have the
information they need to optimize their performance in both the classroom and
the laboratory.
It
is apparent from the slide that U.S. science and math achievement for grade 12
students fall substantially below what we would expect.
In science we rank 16th , with a score of 480 and in math we
rank 19th, with a score of 461, significantly below the world
average of 500.8
Of
the million first degrees in science and engineering awarded worldwide,
200,000 were awarded in the U.S. Data
from 1997 shows 5,500 Masters degrees and 4,500 Doctoral degrees in the
physical sciences awarded by U.S. academic institutions.9
This number of post secondary degrees in the physical sciences has
remained fairly constant over the last 25 years.
There
is a need for a source of physical science information and resources not only
to serve this user base but also to prepare for an educated research community
to sustain U.S. competitiveness.
Does
the responsibility for the future development of scientists and engineers rest
solely in the hands of educators? Or,
does the physical science community share in the responsibility for education?
Perhaps
our visionary Information Infrastructure for the Physical Sciences may be one
means by which the physical science community meets that responsibility?
VI.
Business and Industry
U.S. Position In The Global Economy
|
U.S. Patents Issued 1968-1998 |
|||
| 1963 | 1998 | % Change | |
| To US Citizens | 37,174 | 80,295 | 220% |
| To Foreign Citizens | 8,505 | 67,295 | 790% |
| Total Issued | 45,679 | 147,521 | 320% |
|
Real Gross Domestic Product: 1970 - 1997 |
|||
| 1970 | 1997 | % Change | |
| United States | 3.8B | 8.1B | 210% |
| Western Europe | 4.3B | 8.2B | 190% |
| East Asia/Pacific | 3.5B | 11.4B | 456% |
1998 -- 45.6%
U.S. Patent
Statistics, Calendar Year 1963-1998
Handbook of International Economic Patent
and Trademark Office
Statistics, Central Intelligence Agency
Business
and industry make available and convert research results into the tools and
products we often take for granted: lasers,
radiation treatments, even plastics.
Plastic,
as ubiquitous as it is, provides an example of the rate of transfer from
research results to application. The
origin of plastic was based on laboratory research by Alexander Parks, who
unveiled it at the 1862 Great International Exhibition in London.
One hundred years later plastic is integral to our way of life.10
It
is essential that the linkage from research results and rate of transfer to
the business and industry communities keep pace with the global communication
processes that are evolving through the use of the Internet.
It
is clear from the slide that the U.S. is losing ground in the patents issues
in comparison to patents issues to foreign citizens.
We note that the positive change in number of patents issued to U.S.
citizens has risen 220% in the period of 1963 - 1998 while patents issued to
foreign citizens during the same period has risen 790%.11
Further
the percent change in Real Gross Domestic Product for the period of 1970 –
1997 shows a similar pattern. U.S.
percent change during this period has shown a positive 210% while the East
Asia/Pacific has shown a positive 456% change in Real Gross Domestic Product.12
Both
indicators would suggest that while we are continuing to show positive
increases in both areas our rate of improvement is not keeping pace with world
competitors.
Though
scientists and engineers have well-established individual patterns for
information discovery, often these patterns are focused in areas of
specialization and not attuned to interdisciplinary opportunities for
discovery.
More
often than not, scientists and engineers are overwhelmed with a mass of
information within their own specialty let alone stay abreast of a work done
in other arenas that could contribute to the efforts of the scientist or
engineer. This often results in
missed opportunities or wasted resources.
During
the 1996-2006 time-period, scientist and engineer employment is expected to
increase at more than three times the rate for all other occupations.13
Though
the need for more scientists and engineers to fill these positions is
intuitively clear we may not have the talent to fill those positions.
This further emphasizes the need for more efficient tools and processes
to collect organize and synthesize physical science information.
Might
the information infrastructure provide that point of convergence to simplify
and improve on interdisciplinary opportunities for discovery?
Might it also have a role in expediting the rate of transfer of
information from bench to application?
VII.
Publishing Industry: Partners in Science
Publishing Industry:
Partners in Science
