The nature of innovation and invention is not singular, but rather involves a matrix of factors to include, but not limited to, the intellectual and scientific atmosphere of the time, the principle actors in the field of interest, the nature and function of the invention or concept, as well as the economic and cultural paradigm into which the innovation was designed for. Each element is vital and pivotal in the innovative and creative process, and through my experiences in this course I have been exposed to people, inventions and cultures that all illuminate each facet of this unique relationship.

In regards to the intellectual and scientific atmosphere of the time, I look back at our investigation into the relationship between science and culture. “There is perhaps no other field of study that more dramatically impacts our culture than science” (Science and Culture), and as we look further into science and its impact on culture, I deduced that the two driving forces behind this relationship are necessity and competition (competition being a concept that will be covered in more depth later). The intellectual and scientific atmosphere plays a key role in dictating not only what technology is introduced, but also the rate at which it is developed. In The Innovators, significant advances in microchip technology were made by both Jack Kilby and Robert Noyce during the same time frame, but were done so completely independently. The author uses this point to illustrate that while individual intellect indeed played its part, “the atmosphere of the time was primed for such an invention” (The Innovators). In an alternative example, James Watt developed his breakthrough advancements in steam engine technology during a time when steam power was vastly utilized yet highly inefficient. The culture of the time, slowly becoming reliant on this technology, demanded an innovation of this kind, Watt was simply the individual who capitalized on it.

The next, and perhaps most personally significant and interesting facet of this course, has been understanding the type of individual that is capable of changing the world with a concept or invention. Although the technology is pivotal, it is the individual that should be truly admired. I found that in the earlier times (i.e. the enlightenment, scientific revolution, etc.), those that transformed the world of science and technology were driven almost entirely by theory vice practicality. Isaac Newton, while at Cambridge, “developed a system founded on mental distraction to avoid [the typical temptations of the time (i.e. women, partying, etc.)], one that he would cling to for the rest of his life, and it was through this system that he would devote seven days a week, up to 18 hours a day to study while at Cambridge” (Newton documentary). Through this unrelenting intellectual discipline allowed him to produce a “500-page dissertation type study on gravity, laws of motion (both planetary and classical mechanical in nature)” that is still today considered the single most influential piece of scientific literature. Fast-forwarding several hundred years, Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison are driven by practicality and the need to infuse electric motors into the household and the widespread economy, and the fierce competition between the two allowed both of them to accomplish just that. Still intellectually disciplined and rigorous, not unlike Newton and his peers, but the driving force behind the search for knowledge and innovation is dissimilar than in earlier times.

I also gained a great deal of insight on how to produce innovation from the novel The Innovators. Bell Labs and their work following WWII (which subsequently produced the transistor and the microchip and revolutionized the semiconductor industry) serves as a great example of how bringing the right minds together in the right way can produce scientific breakthroughs that would have been otherwise impossible. Interestingly, their success emerged in part from joint efforts in both basic science and theoretical research as well as a focus on practical engineering (the authors note that “Advances in quantum theory came at the same time that metallurgists were discovering new methods to create new materials; the chemical engineers stumbled across evidence for much of what the theorists were conjuring” (The Innovators: chapter 4 & 5 summary). Additionally, Bell Labs showed that creative energy was fueled by physical proximity. Their long corridors and interconnected, inter-disciplinary departments encouraged chance meetings of individuals across different disciplines (such as the quantum theorists and chemical engineers mentioned above) and “the close collaboration between experimentalists and theorists extended through all stages of the research” (The Innovators).

Lastly, our investigation into the Manhattan Project, the development of the atomic bomb and the subsequent impact that that had on the world provided a very emotionally charged insight into the darker side of what scientific innovation is capable of. In regards to the Manhattan Project, I found it extremely impressive that capability that the United States was host to in terms of driving scientific development when they made it a national priority. Making use of a “blank check” mentality, in only two years we were able to create a piece of technology that would re-define our society, to include strategic and policy implications that use of the bomb brought about. Alternatively, witnessing the destructive power of the weapon and hearing the accounts of the Japanese survivors left me with very little faith in the morality of the United States. Our actions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem to degrade our Country’s stance as a national peace-striving organization, which was a very powerful realization for me, considering my plans on entering the Marine Corps.

In conclusion, what I have learned in this course both about the nature of innovation and the nature of the men and women who have exploited it has been indispensible. Having a keen and refined understanding of the conditions, parameters and personalities that have been prerequisites of success in the past, I feel will allow me to better replicate those ingredients in the future.

Japanese perspective on atomic bomb

• “Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy’s will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk”¹ . The American government justified their use of the atomic bomb with an argument similar to the one proposed by Rhodes in the Manhattan Project documentary: “Mr. President, what will you tell the American people at your impeachment…when they found out that you had a weapon that could have ended the war and saved American lives and you decided not to use it.” They believed it to be an instrument of peace, one that would bring an earlier end to the conflict and thereby prevent a higher death toll. However, when objections are made to its use within the context of the time it was used (in other words, without the knowledge of how history unfolded), there exists strong evidence of why the use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese people was an unsightly display of inhumanity.
• The behaviors that we employ in warfare in a limited capacity are always at risk of being employed to a greater, sometimes limitless capacity. The use of the atomic bomb on unarmed noncombatants (to include women and children), regardless of justification, demonstrated that the United States believed this behavior to be appropriate. By doing this, they could have potentially opened the door to the widespread use of this behavior not only by us, but also by the numerous other nations developing this technology concurrently with us. This essentially could have very easily placed our world on a path to its own destructiveness, as well marking the creation of a more cruel world, one which is virtually void of moral and ethical limitations on conflict.
• The massacre of the Japanese people during WWII marked a key degradation of our nation’s morals. The realm of policy and grand military strategy coexists during a time of war with the nature in which we fight. Following Hiroshima we could no longer lay claim to any distinction of moral uprightness and our reputation on a national scale was placed in significant jeopardy. Our actions were inhumane, were performed primarily out of anger and frustration towards an enemy that refused to yield, and as such abolished any moral or ethical foundation upon which we previously sat. We rid ourselves of any adherence to justice, honor, and showed the world that we as a nation were willing to engage in destructive behavior to a scale never before seen.
• Lastly, there exists a rebuttal to the argument of saving American lives and using the atomic bomb as a shortcut to peace. War is traditionally viewed as a formal, declared conflict between armed hostiles. The nameless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of non-combatants was not an act of war, but rather an act of genocide, made out of selfish personal interest and frustration towards a relentless enemy. Although indeed sparing American lives, these saved lives came at the expense of a population detached from combat and who had spent the previous years shedding the same tears for lost loved ones as their American counterpart.

Sources

• Zinn, H. (2003). A people’s history of the United States. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
• Modern Marvels: The Manhattan Project

Manhattan Project and Atomic Weaponry: Executive Summary

• The Manhattan project was a two-year collaborative effort by the leading scientists and engineers in the United States working under the banner of the US Army to create the first atomic bomb. Its resources amassed to over 2 billion dollars, the equivalent in today’s market being roughly 30 billion dollars, and its work spanned over 30 sites within the United States. President Roosevelt first created the effort in response to Germany’s discovery of nuclear fission and, after additional progress was being made overseas, the attention towards advancement in this field increased exponentially.
• The theoretical base for the weapon is that bombarding Uranium with neutrons creates an unstable nucleus, and when the correct proportion of neutrons and Uranium is achieved (critical mass), an explosive chain reaction is sustained. Uranium 235 (the ideal isotope for use in weaponry) can be harnessed by electromagnetic separation and gaseous diffusion. Both of these processes were employed on a massive scale, were extremely costly, and ultimately led to the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars in the production of facilities that produced the fissionable material. Later developments placed Plutonium at the forefront of atomic weaponry, an element that could be produced much easier and in much larger quantities.

• When making a statement regarding Japan’s potential surrender, President Truman declared that the United States would “completely destroy Japan’s power to make war. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the like of which has never been seen on this earth.” The “little boy” atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima had the force of 12,500 tons of TNT. Ninety-percent of the city was leveled by the 500mph winds of the blast, charring the skins of the men, women and children 2 miles away and the death toll rose to 130,000 from both the blast and subsequent radiation.

Great tragic epic of the 20^th century

• Whether the use of the atomic bomb and its subsequent introduction into warfare and policy was truly an instrument of peace, or if it is perhaps the most heinous display of mankind’s immorality and blind destructiveness remains a question at large to this day. Author Richard Rhodes refers to the creation of the atomic bomb as the “great tragic epic of the 20^th century,” one that adopts the theme of humankind inventing the means of its own destruction. The reactions of those interviewed for the Modern Marvels documentary appear to be two-fold. The first facet is one of forlorn solemnity, a kind of grave understanding and recognition of the biblical-type carnage that was the fruits of their intellectual labors during those years. Hidden under the convenient shroud of a nationalistic intellectual triumph, there is no escaping the damage that came as a result of the successful creation of atomic weaponry. However, despite this understanding, many of those interviewed had little to no regret of their actions. Dr. Edward Teller, a designer of the Hydrogen bomb, is quoted saying, “progress cannot be stopped, and I am very much afraid that progress will occur, and will occur in a country less dedicated to peace than we are.” Similarly, other scientists interviewed were host to the stance that the advent of this technology was inevitable, indeed it was impending considering the advances made in Europe. They seemed to find solace in the fact that they helped the United States harness it before a more malicious counterpart was able to, and despite the catastrophic damage that it caused, it was the last time atomic weaponry was used. This may also have been inevitable, but it can also act as evidence of the United States’ true concern for peace and the minimization of violence on this scale.

3 men and their profound impact on society

• They helped remove the intellectual shackles with which the Catholic Church had been restraining the scientific community for decades (Galileo and Darwin)
  • From a historical standpoint, the Catholic Church has a reputation of acting as an oppressing force against the influx of radical, unsettling scientific ideas or concepts that challenge or come into conflict with God. In the eras of both Galileo and Darwin, this was certainly the case. Galileo lived in a time where both Copernican and Aristotelian/Ptolemaic theories existed, but it was considered heresy to openly support a theory that did not place earth, and therefore humans and God, at the center of the universe. Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, albeit published without the intention of upsetting the church, would do just that, and this iconic work would lead to his incarceration and house arrest by the hands of the inquisition. Similarly, Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection put forth the notion that God is not absolutely necessary in a Darwinian universe and his theories replaced divine intervention with a natural one. Again exemplifying the oppressive nature of the Church, Darwin resisted the temptation to publish his findings for years for fear of persecution. Collectively, although Galileo and Darwin did not act directly against the church per se, they gave birth to ideas, which, over time, would grow to degrade against the intellectual monopoly of the Church.
• They were perhaps the most influential catalysts on the field of Astronomy (Galileo and Newton)
  • As mentioned above, Galileo’s defense of the heliocentric universe helped solidify its place within the scientific community and ushered the politically charged paradigm towards widespread acceptance. In addition to this work, Galileo’s telescope, modeled initially from a verbal description of a similar device created in the Netherlands, allowed him to see the heavens to a distance that had been previously unknown. This, in turn, subsequently led to the discovery of Jupiter’s moons and advanced work on our own moon, sunspots and the Milky Way galaxy. Collectively, these works ushered in a new era of astrology and Newton, in his own right, accomplished a similar feat with his work. His invention of the calculus transformed our ability to mathematically comprehend and describe motion, to include planetary motion. Furthermore, his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica laid the foundation for our current understanding of gravity and planetary motion. Indeed, the laws of motion that he set forth in his iconic work remain the bedrock of simple mechanics. In addition to his academic accomplishments, Newton redesigned the telescope to use reflecting mirrors instead of refracting glass lenses, thereby drastically increasing the range and clarity capable from a telescope. Just as Galileo opened the door to the next era of astronomical development, Newton can be readily identified as the individual who opened the door to ours.
• Collectively, these three men radically changed the way in which we as human beings place ourselves within a higher world order (Galileo, Newton and Darwin)
  • The ideas that truly shake our societal intellectual paradigms are the ones that revolutionize the way in which we perceive our place in the greater universe and individually, these three men accomplished that. With Galileo’s aforementioned assessment on the two astronomical fields of thought, he not only solidified our scientific acceptance of a heliocentric universe, but also did so for society’s masses. This iconic work was written as a dialogue not mathematically of philosophically intensive, and written in language comprehendible to the average man. By doing this he allowed for this knowledge and paradigm shift to permeate past the upper echelon of the educational elite. Decades later, Newton’s Principia Mathematica had a similar effect. By asserting the existence of a universal gravitational force and using this force as a mathematical explanation for planetary motion he again depicted earth as not the pinnacle of all things great and unique, but rather just another planet, operating under the same laws as every other planet in our universe. Lastly, Darwin’s rejection of creationism (not directly, but rather through the spread of a radically new biological principle) and minimization of God’s influence on man’s development again eliminated the divine nature of man by depicting him as being no different to all the other animals in our environment. Collectively, these men definitively changed how man viewed his own place within the environment, and how he viewed his planet among the universe.

There is perhaps no other field of study that more dramatically impacts our culture than science. The technologies we use, the way in which we perceive our place in the world, and even our religious beliefs and the extent to which we allow them to govern our intellectual paradigms are all profoundly impacted by science. As we look through history we can see an endless number of examples of how science, both in elements of discovery and the practical advent of science in technology, has shaped our culture. This list, however, can be deduced to two principal, driving forces: necessity and competition. These elements have altogether dictated the pursuit of science as a discipline and from that discipline we have seen monumental impacts on our society as a whole.

The cliché “necessity is the mother of invention” holds true not only for invention and technology but also to the advancement of science as its own discipline. For example, we can look at James Watt and his perfection of steam engine technology and the production of what became known as the Watt engine. The Newcomen steam engine, the only engine of its kind at the time, was extremely inefficient and because of this inefficiency the applications for this piece of technology was left wanting. Watt’s innovations emerged out of the necessity to improve this technology not only for the sake of the Newcomen engine’s limited applications (i.e. pumping water), but to open the door to previously unforeseen applications. Additionally, in his process of innovation Watt patented several other inventions to facilitate his engine, again demonstrating the power of necessity on pushing the boundaries of science and technology. In addition, Louis Pasteur’s advent of pasteurization arose out of him noticing that pathogenic microorganisms that arose in beer, wine and milk were infecting animals and humans, ultimately leading to disease. It was the necessity for innovation, and indeed for Pasteur a paradigm shift in molecular biology, that drove him to produce a process that has become the bedrock of our food and drink industry today.

When necessity is not at the forefront we see competition take its place as a primary motivator for innovation. In regards to this, perhaps the most iconic example is the tension that existed between Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison in their quest for innovation within the field of electricity and magnetism. Even when taking into account the likelihood of exaggeration applied to this relationship (which, as history uncovers itself, is proving to be quite high), the race for technological and economic supremacy so clearly drove the exploration of the field and the practical advent of electric motors. Ultimately it was this competitive environment that these scientists were forced to operate in that pushed Edison’s innovations into our daily lives and allowed Tesla’s innovations in AC currents and motors to revolutionize the ways in which we conceive and generate power. Alternatively, the overwhelming competition and focus within the field of X-Rays led Marie Curie and her husband Pierre to explore Uranium rays, a path they believed would be less obstructed and one which would allow them more scientific autonomy. In this instance, intellectual competition did not drive the pair so much as it steered them down a path that would lead Marie Curie to have perhaps the most successful career in science.

In conclusion, both necessity and competition can be readily seen as the driving force behind science and innovation. When these forces are combined, they help write the history of development of our use and knowledge of science and technology, which in turn has a monumental impact on our lives, culture, and the things that we identify with as a society.