The Coming of Materials Science Fine, M.E. (1990)The First Thirty Years, in Tech, The Early Years: a History of the Technological Institute at Northwestern University from 1939 to 1969(privately published by Northwestern University)p. 121 Fine, M. E(1994)Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 24, 1 Fine, M E(1996) Letter to the author dated 20 March 1996 Fleischer R.L.(1998) Tracks to Innovation (Springer, New York)p 31 Frankel, J. P(1957) Principles of the Properties of Materials(McGraw-Hill, New York) Furukawa, Y.(1998)Inventing Polymer Science (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia Gaines, G L. and Wise, G.(1983) in: Heterogeneous Catalysis: Selected american Histories. ACS Symposium Series 222(American Chemical Society, Washington, DO p.13 Harwood, J..(1970) Emergence of the field and early hopes, in Materials Science and gineering in the United States, ed. Roy, R(Pennsylvania State University Press)p. I Hoddeson, L, Braun, E, Teichmann, J and Weart, S (editors)(1992) Out of the Crystal Maze(Oxford University Press, Oxford) Hollomon, J H ( 1958)J. Metals(AIME/, 10, 796 Hounshell, D.A. and Smith, J K.(1988)Science and Corporate Strategy: Du Pont R&D Howe, J. P (1987) Letters to the author dated 6 January and 24 June 1987. Kingery, W D, Bowen, H K and Uhlmann, D.R.(1976)Introduction to Ceramics, 2nd edition(Wiley, New York) Kingery, W D. (1981)in Grain Boundary Phenomena in Electronic Ceramics, ed Levinson, L M.(American Ceramic Society, Columbus, OH)p I Kingery, W. .(1999) Text of an unpublished lecture, The Changing World of Ceramics 1949-1999, communicated by the author. Kuo, K H(1996) Letter to the author dated 30 April 1996 Liebhafsky, H A(1974)William David Coolidge: A Centenarian and his Work(Wiley- Interscience. New York) Markl, H. (1998) European Review 6, 33 Morawetz, H. (1985)Polymers: The Origins and Growth of a Science(Wiley-Interscien New York; republished in a Dover edition, 1995) Mott, N F(organizer)(1980) The Beginnings of Solid State Physics, Proc. Roy. Soc Lond) 371, I Psaras, P.A. and Langford, H D(eds )(1987) Advancing Materials Research(Natic demy Press, Washington DC)p 35 Riordan, M. and Hoddeson, L(1997) Crystal Fire: The Birth of the Information Age (W.W. Norton, New York) oy, R(1977) Interdisciplinary Science on Campus- the Elusive Dream, Chemical Seitz, F(1994)MRS Bulletin 19/3, 60 Shockley, W, Hollomon, J.H., Maurer, R and Seitz, F(editors)(1952)Imperfections in Nearly Perfect Crystals(Wiley, New York Sproull, R L(1987)Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 17, I
16 The Coming of Materials Science Fine, M.E. (1990) The First Thirty Years, in Tech, The Early Years." a History of the Technological Institute at Northwestern University from 1939 to 1969 (privately published by Northwestern University) p. 121. Fine, M.E. (1994) Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 24, 1. Fine, M.E. (1996) Letter to the author dated 20 March 1996. Fleischer R.L. (1998) Tracks to Innovation (Springer, New York) p. 31. Frankel, J.P. (1957) Principles of the Properties of Materials (McGraw-Hill, New York). Furukawa, Y. (1998) Inventing Polymer Science (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia). Gaines, G.L. and Wise, G. (1983) in: Heterogeneous Catalysis." Selected American Histories. A CS Symposium Series 222 (American Chemical Society, Washington, DC) p. 13. Harwood, J.J. (1970) Emergence of the field and early hopes, in Materials Science and Engineering in the United States, ed. Roy, R. (Pennsylvania State University Press) p. 1. Hoddeson, L., Braun, E., Teichmann, J. and Weart, S. (editors) (1992) Out of the Crystal Maze (Oxford University Press, Oxford). Hollomon, J.H. (1958) J. Metals (AIME), 10, 796. Hounshell, D.A. and Smith, J.K. (1988) Science and Corporate Strategy." Du Pont R&D, 1902-1980 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp. 229, 245, 249. Howe, J.P. (1987) Letters to the author dated 6 January and 24 June 1987. Kingery, W.D., Bowen, H.K. and Uhlmann, D.R. (1976) Introduction to Ceramics, 2nd edition (Wiley, New York). Kingery, W.D. (1981) in Grain Boundary Phenomena in Electronic Ceramics, ed. Levinson, L.M. (American Ceramic Society, Columbus, OH) p. 1. Kingery, W.D. (1999) Text of an unpublished lecture, The Changing Worm of Ceramics 1949-1999, communicated by the author. Kuo, K.H. (1996) Letter to the author dated 30 April 1996. Liebhafsky, H.A. (1974) William David Coolidge." A Centenarian and his Work (WileyInterscience, New York). Markl, H. (1998) European Review 6, 333. Morawetz, H. (1985) Polymers." The Origins and Growth of a Science (Wiley-Interscience, New York; republished in a Dover edition, 1995). Mott, N.F. (organizer) (1980) The Beginnings of Solid State Physics, Proc. Roy. Soc. (Lond.) 371, 1. Psaras, P.A. and Langford, H.D. (eds.) (1987) Advancing Materials Research (National Academy Press, Washington DC) p. 35. Riordan, M. and Hoddeson, L. (1997) Crystal Fire." The Birth of the Information Age (W.W. Norton, New York). Roy, R. (1977) Interdisciplinary Science on Campus- the Elusive Dream, Chemical Engineering News, August. Seitz, F. (1994) MRS Bulletin 19/3, 60. Shockley, W., Hollomon, J.H., Maurer, R. and Seitz, F. (editors) (1952) Imperfections in Nearly Perfect Crystals (Wiley, New York). Sproull, R.L. (1987) Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 17, 1
introduction Suits, C G. and Bueche, A.M.(1967)in Applied Science and Technological Progress: A Report to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, US House of Representatives, by te National Academy of Sciences(US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC) p Turnbull, D. ( 1980)in Laser and Electron Beam Processing of Materials, ed White, C W and Peercy, P.S.(Academic Press, New York)p, 1 Turnbull, D.(1983)Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 13, 1 Turnbull, D. (1986) Autobiography, unpublished typescript Westbrook, J.H. and Fleischer, R L(1995) Intermetallic Compounds: Principles and Practice(Wiley, Chichester, UK) wise, G.(1985)Willis R. Whitney, General Electric, and the Origins of US industr Research( columbia University Press, New York)
Introduction 17 Suits, C.G. and Bueche, A.M. (1967) in Applied Science and Technological Progress." A Report to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, US House of Representatives, by the National Academy of Sciences (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC) p. 297. Turnbull, D. (1980) in Laser and Electron Beam Processing of Materials, ed. White, C.W. and Peercy, P.S. (Academic Press, New York) p. 1. Turnbull, D. (1983) Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 13, 1. Turnbull, D. (1986) Autobiography, unpublished typescript. Westbrook, J.H. and Fleischer, R.L. (1995) Intermetallic Compounds." Principles and Practice (Wiley, Chichester, UK). Wise, G. (1985) Willis R. Whitney, General Electric, and the Origins of US Industrial Research (Columbia University Press, New York)
apter The Emergence of disciplines 2. 1. Drawing Parallels 2.1. 1 The Emergence of Physical Chemistry 2. 1.2 The Origins of Chemical Engineering 2. 1.3 Polymer Science 2.1.4 Colloids 2.1.5 Solid-state Physics and Chemistry 2.1.6 Continuum mechanics and atomistic mechanics of solids 2.2. The Natural History of disciplines eferences
Chapter 2 The Emergence of Disciplines 2.1. Drawing Parallels 2.1.1 The Emergence of Physical Chemistry 2.1.2 The Origins of Chemical Engineering 2.1.3 Polymer Science 2.1.4 Colloids 2.1.5 Solid-state Physics and Chemistry 2.1.6 Continuum Mechanics and Atomistic Mechanics of Solids 2.2. The Natural History of Disciplines References 21 23 32 35 41 45 47 50 51
Chapter 2 The Emergence of disciplines 2. 1. DRAWING PARALLELS This entire book is about the emergence, nature and cultivation of a new discipline, materials science and engineering. To draw together the strings of this story, it helps to be clear about what a scientific discipline actually is; that, in turn, becomes clearer if one looks at the emergence of some earlier disciplines which have had more time to reach a condition of maturity. Comparisons can help in definition; we can narrow a vague concept by examining what apparently diverse examples have in common John Ziman is a renowned theoretical solid-state physicist who has turned himself into a distinguished metascientist (one who examines the nature and institutions of scientific research in general). In fact, he has successfully switched disciplines. In a lecture delivered in 1995 to the Royal Society of London(ziman 1996), he has this to say: Academic science could not function without some sort of internal social structure. This structure is provided by subject specialisation Academic science is divided into disciplines. each of which is a recognised domain of organised teaching and research. It is practically impossible to be an academic scientist without locating oneself initially in an established discipline. The fact that disciplines are usually very loosely organised(my italics)does not make them ineffective. An academic discipline is much more than a conglomerate of university departments, learned societies and scientific journals. It is an "invisible college whose members share a particular research tradition (my italics). This is where academic scientists acquire the various theoretical paradigms, codes of practice and technical methods that are considered good science in their particular disciplines A recognised discipline or sub-discipline provides an academic scientist with a home base, a tribal identity, a social stage on which to perform as a researcher. " Another attempt to define the concept of a scientific discipline, by the science historian Servos 990, Preface), is fairly similar, but focuses more on intellectual concerns: By a discipline, I mean a family-like grouping of individuals sharing intellectual ancestry and united at any given time by an interest in common or overlapping problems, techniques and institutions". These two wordings are probably as close as we can ge to the definition of a scientific discipline in general The concept of an "invisible college, mentioned by Ziman, is the creation of Derek de solla price, an influential historian of science and" herald of scientomet rics"(Yagi et aL. 1996), who wrote at length about such colleges and their role in the scientific enterprise(Price 1963, 1986). Price was one of the first to apply quantitative
Chapter 2 The Emergence of Disciplines 2.1. DRAWING PARALLELS This entire book is about the emergence, nature and cultivation of a new discipline, materials science and engineering. To draw together the strings of this story, it helps to be clear about what a scientific discipline actually is; that, in turn, becomes clearer if one looks at the emergence of some earlier disciplines which have had more time to reach a condition of maturity. Comparisons can help in definition; we can narrow a vague concept by examining what apparently diverse examples have in common. John Ziman is a renowned theoretical solid-state physicist who has turned himself into a distinguished metascientist (one who examines thc nature and institutions of scientific research in general). In fact, he has successfully switched disciplines. In a lecture delivered in 1995 to the Royal Society of London (Ziman 1996), he has this to say: “Academic science could not function without some sort of internal social structure. This structure is provided by subject specialisation. Academic science is divided into disciplines, each of which is a recognised domain of organised teaching and research. It is practically impossible to be an academic scientist without locating oneself initially in an established discipline. The fact that disciplines are usually very loosely organised (my italics) does not make them ineffective. An academic discipline is much more than a conglomerate of university departments, learned societies and scientific journals. It is an ‘invisible college’, whose members share a particular research tradition (my italics). This is where academic scientists acquire the various theoretical paradigms, codes of practice and technical methods that are considered ‘good science’ in their particular disciplines. . . A recognised discipline or sub-discipline provides an academic scientist with a home base, a tribal identity, a social stage on which to perform as a researcher.” Another attempt to define the concept of a scientific discipline, by the science historian Servos (1990, Preface), is fairly similar, but focuses more on intellectual concerns: “By a discipline, I mean a family-like grouping of individuals sharing intellectual ancestry and united at any given time by an interest in common or overlapping problems, techniques and institutions”. These two wordings are probably as close as we can get to the definition of a scientific discipline in general. The concept of an ‘invisible college’, mentioned by Ziman, is the creation of Derek de Solla Price, an influential historian of science and “herald of scientometrics” (Yagi et al. 1996), who wrote at length about such colleges and their role in the scientific enterprise (Price 1963, 1986). Price was one of the first to apply quantitative 21
The con methods to the analysis of publication, reading, citation, preprint distribution and other forms of personal communication among scientists, including conference- crawling. These activities define groups, the members of which, he explains, ""seem to have mastered the art of attracting invitations from centres where they can work along with several members of the group for a short time. This done, they move to the next centre and other members. Then they return to home base, but always their allegiance is to the group rather than to the institution which supports them, unless it happens to be a station on such a circuit. For each group there exists a sort of commuting circuit of institutions, research centres, and summer schools giving them an opportunity to meet piecemeal, so that over an interval of a few years everybody who is anybody has worked with everybody else in the same category. Such groups constitute an invisible college, in the same sense as did those first unofficial pioneers who later banded together to found the royal Society in 1660. An invisible college, as Price paints it, is apt to define, not a mature discipline but rather an emergent grouping which may or may not later ripen into a fully blown discipline, and this may happen at breakneck speed as it did for molecular biology after the nature of DNA had been discovered in 1953, or slowly and deliberately, as has happened with materials science There are two particularly difficult problems associated with attempts to map the nature of a new discipline and the timing of its emergence. One is the fierce reluctance of many traditional scientists to accept that a new scientific grouping has any validity, just as within a discipline, a revolutionary new scientific paradigm (Kuhn 1970)meets hostility from the adherents of the established model. The other ifficulty is more specific: a new discipline may either be a highly specific breakaway rom an established broad field, or it may on the contrary represent a broad synthesis from a number of older, narrower fields: the splitting of physical chemistry away from synthetic organic chemistry in the nineteenth century is an instance of the former, the emergence of materials science as a kind of synthesis from metallurgy, solid-state physics and physical chemistry exemplifies the latter, For brevity, we ight name these two alternatives emergence by spli integration, The objections that are raised against these two kinds of disciplinary creation are apt to be different: emergence by splitting is criticised for breaking up a hard-won intellectual unity, while emergence by integration is criticised as a woolly bridging of hitherto clearcut intellectual distinctions Materials science has in its time suffered a great deal of the second type of criticism. Thus Calvert(1997)asserts that"metallurgy remains a proper discipline with fundamental theories, methods and boundaries. Things fell apart when th subject extended to become materials science, with the growing use of polymers ceramics, glasses and composites in engineering. The problem is that all materials are different and we no longer have a discipline
22 The Coming of Materials Science methods to the analysis of publication, reading, citation, preprint distribution and other forms of personal communication among scientists, including 'conferencecrawling'. These activities define groups, the members of which, he explains, "seem to have mastered the art of attracting invitations from centres where they can work along with several members of the group for a short time. This done, they move to the next centre and other members. Then they return to home base, but always their allegiance is to the group rather than to the institution which supports them, unless it happens to be a station on such a circuit. For each group there exists a sort of commuting circuit of institutions, research centres, and summer schools giving them an opportunity to meet piecemeal, so that over an interval of a few years everybody who is anybody has worked with everybody else in the same category. Such groups constitute an invisible college, in the same sense as did those first unofficial pioneers who later banded together to found the Royal Society in 1660." An invisible college, as Price paints it, is apt to define, not a mature discipline but rather an emergent grouping which may or may not later ripen into a fully blown discipline, and this may happen at breakneck speed, as it did for molecular biology after the nature of DNA had been discovered in 1953, or slowly and deliberately, as has happened with materials science. There are two particularly difficult problems associated with attempts to map the nature of a new discipline and the timing of its emergence. One is the fierce reluctance of many traditional scientists to accept that a new scientific grouping has any validity, just as within a discipline, a revolutionary new scientific paradigm (Kuhn 1970) meets hostility from the adherents of the established model. The other difficulty is more specific: a new discipline may either be a highly specific breakaway from an established broad field, or it may on the contrary represent a broad synthesis from a number of older, narrower fields: the splitting of physical chemistry away from synthetic organic chemistry in the nineteenth century is an instance of the former, the emergence of materials science as a kind of synthesis from metallurgy, solid-state physics and physical chemistry exemplifies the latter. For brevity, we might name these two alternatives emergence by splitting and emergence by integration. The objections that are raised against these two kinds of disciplinary creation are apt to be different: emergence by splitting is criticised for breaking up a hard-won intellectual unity, while emergence by integration is criticised as a woolly bridging of hitherto clearcut intellectual distinctions. Materials science has in its time suffered a great deal of the second type of criticism. Thus Calvert (1997) asserts that "metallurgy remains a proper discipline, with fundamental theories, methods and boundaries. Things fell apart when the subject extended to become materials science, with the growing use of polymers, ceramics, glasses and composites in engineering. The problem is that all materials are different and we no longer have a discipline