有关 费曼 Richard P. Feynman 先生的网页 理查德·菲利普斯·费曼，Richard Phillips Feynman，1918年5月11日—1988年2月15日 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Richard-Feynman （1）理查德·费曼_百度百科 https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E7%90%86%E6%9F%A5%E5%BE%B7%C2%B7%E8%B4%B9%E6%9B%BC 理查德·菲利普斯·费曼（英文：Richard Phillips Feynman，1918年5月11日—1988年2月15日），美籍犹太裔物理学家，加州理工学院物理学教授，1965年诺贝尔物理奖得主。 （2）Richard P. Feynman，The Nobel Prize in Physics 1965 https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1965/summary/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1965/feynman/facts/ （3）The Official Site of Richard Feynman http://www.richardfeynman.com/about/bio.html （4）Richard Feynman，American physicist，大英百科全书 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Richard-Feynman Richard Feynman, in full Richard Phillips Feynman, (born May 11, 1918, New York, New York, U.S.—died February 15, 1988, Los Angeles, California), American theoretical physicist who was widely regarded as the most brilliant, influential, and iconoclastic figure in his field in the post-World War II era. （5）科普中国，2016-02-15，理查德·费曼：你何必在意别人怎么想？ http://tech.gmw.cn/scientist/2016-02/15/content_18888835.htm （6）理查德·费曼 http://ren.bytravel.cn/history/4/lichadefeiman.html （7）The Feynman Lectures on Physics http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_22.html （7-2）22 AC Circuits http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_22.html In addition to mutual inductances there may also be mutual capacitances. 在 1961~1963 年，费曼只给出了这样一个“没有生产意义”的互容模型和等效电路。没有别的内容了。 费曼只“may also be”了互容。 传闻 Murray F. Gardner, John L. Barnes 在《Transients in Linear Systems》（John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 出版日期：1942）也有“互容”的定义。详情正在查找核对中。 相关链接： 2019-06-29，有关 Fred C. Lee 李泽元老师的网页 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1187364.html 2019-07-07，有关 Geoffrey W. A. Dummer 先生的网页 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1188470.html 2019-03-04， Демирчян、Нейман、Коровкин、Чечурин 里谁是院士？ http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1165610.html 2019-02-25， 俄罗斯学者将俺的电路理论“互容”概念写入了教材？ http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1164136.html 4 STRANGE NEW WAYS TO COMPUTE, 作者: Moore, Samuel K.,IEEE SPECTRUM,卷: 55,期: 1,页: 10-11, 出版年: JAN 2018 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8241695 https://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/computing/hardware/4-strange-new-ways-to-make-a-computer 2019-07-01， 量子集成电路、量子芯片 Quantum Chip 今后30年内的实用前景？ http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1187623.html 2019-07-10，电路概念《互容》汇报后记 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1188921.html 2019-07-11， 有没有必要通过媒体《专访》推动“半电路、半电磁场”集成电路芯片的预研？ http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1189103.html 感谢您的指教！ 感谢您指正以上任何错误！ 感谢您提供更多的相关资料！
外行看热闹，内行看门道：从低温冷冻电镜的近热看创新 2015.05.03 外行看热闹 前两年听说低温冷冻电镜在测量蛋白质结构方面有大的突破，分辨率已经可以和最好的X射线晶体结构测定不相上下，而且不用再辛辛苦苦培养蛋白晶体，很可能近期会有人得诺贝尔奖之类。 维基百科上关于Cryo-EM的介绍链接： http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryo-electron_microscopy 因为研究领域不同，我对低温冷冻电镜（Cryo Electron Microscopy, Cryo-EM）完全是外行。常言道，外行看热闹，内行看门道。作为不合格的外行，我一直连热闹都没来得及去看。 几个月前偶然在实验室听美国Baylor医学院（Baylor College of Medicine）华裔教授Wah Chiu有关Cryo-EM病毒结构测量的报告，我才想起来去年夏天回北京中关村中科院物理所开超快光谱会的时候，有天晚上去清华大学和几个做生物学研究的几个海龟朋友聊天吃饭之后，去参观了一下清华最先进的Cryo-EM实验室，正好碰见大名鼎鼎的施一公教授在亲自学习如何操作Cryo-EM获取蛋白结构的整个流程。 Baylor医学院Wah Chiu教授网页链接： https://www.bcm.edu/people/view/b279d3f6-ffed-11e2-be68-080027880ca6 施一公当时对我说：鸿飞，抱歉今天没由来和你们一起吃饭。我平时东跑西跑，今天下午正好有整个大半天的时间，所以就来实验室学习Cryo-EM的具体操作和图像处理。现在Cryo-EM在蛋白结构测量上面越来越重要，我早就说要自己亲自把整个集体实验过程走一遍，不然的话我无法了解和帮助学生在做Cryo-EM实验和数据处理中间的具体问题。颜宁说你后天就回去，下次有时间我们或许可以多聊聊，记住向丹红问好。 我跟施一公并不太熟，如果大家闹哄哄地在一起吃饭，估计也没有什么好交谈的。我对他说：不用客气。做研究最重要，你先忙。 Wah Chiu教授报告主要是概述性的东西，看起来好像很厉害的样子。他的报告中没有太多研究细节，于是我就边听边用手机发信问颜宁是否知道Wah Chiu这个人，知不知道他的中文名，以及他的研究究竟怎么样。之后我又用手机在网上查了一下他的简历，发现他于2012年当选了美国科学院的院士，应该也不是等闲之辈。 听完报告之后看到颜宁回信说：老先生的名字叫做赵华，最近在清华做过报告，他的研究水平还不错。不过最近大家猜低温电镜领域近来的革命性突破应该能够得诺贝尔奖，但能够获奖的人应该是Joachim Frank和Richard Henderson，以及可能还有一个叫Glaeser的老先生。 我看了一下她回信的时间，大概是北京时间凌晨两点。无语。 内行看门道 我虽然对于Cryo-EM是外行，但是对于科学领域的发展过程大概是怎么回事应该还算有较多的了解。 听完报告后，我根据颜宁提供的信息去查看Richard Henderson，Joachim Frank以及Glaeser等人究竟是何方神圣。发现Richard Henderson是剑桥大学MRC分子生物学实验室的主任；Jochim Frank1972年在Robert M. Glaeser的UC Berkeley 研究组做博士后；而Wah Chiu于1975年从Robert M. Glaeser组获得博士学位。这帮家伙早在四十多年前的1970年代初就开始折腾低温电镜的大分子和蛋白质成像了。 化学家谱（Chemistry Tree）中Richard henderson信息链接： http://academictree.org/chemistry/tree.php?pid=71705 化学家谱（Chemistry Tree）中Jochim Frank信息链接： http://academictree.org/chemistry/tree.php?pid=82484 化学家谱（Chemistry Tree）中Robert M. Glaeser信息链接： http://academictree.org/chemistry/tree.php?pid=81601 Richard Henderson是苏格兰人，爱丁堡大学获得物理学位后，于1969年在剑桥大学分子生物学实验室获得博士学位，在美国耶鲁大学做过博士后研究之后，于1973年回到剑桥大学至今。 Joachim Frank原来是德国人，1970年在慕尼黑技术大学获得博士学位之后，在美国游学两年多，然后在剑桥大学卡文迪许实验室做研究助理，1975年任职于美国纽约州Albany的公共卫生实验室（Wadsworth Center），2008年加入哥伦比亚大学生命科学系。 Robert M. Glaeser于1964年获得UC Berkeley的生物物理学博士学位，并在牛津大学和芝加哥大学从事量子化学的博士后研究，之后回到UC Berkeley做教授和退休教授至今。 Cryo-EM领域在过去四十多年里面的发展和逐渐成熟当然并不只包括Richard Henderson， Joachim Frank和Robert M.Glaeser三个小组的贡献。近期在探测器和图像处理方面更是取得了突破，使得分辨率达到X射线晶体学的水平。没有阅读更多资料之前，我也无法知道是否他们三人就一定是对该领域的贡献最大。不管如何，这是一个发展了四十多年才逐渐成熟的学科，并不是一朝一夕就取得的成功，因此了解其基本的发展过程和源流应该能够给我们了解和思考学科发展的规律有所启发和帮助。 在搜索相关信息的过程中，我在2007年12月的美国国家科学院院刊（PNAS）找到一篇Joachim Frank当年当选美国科学院院士之后的采访介绍（Profile of Joechim Frank）. 这篇介绍中讲述了Frank的科学生涯和致力于低温电镜技术发展以及推动其在生命科学中应用的过程。看过之后觉得很有意思，值得在这里复述一下。 美国国家科学院院刊PNAS上关于Jochim Frank的介绍Profile of Joachim Frank链接： http://www.pnas.org/content/104/50/19668.full Joachim Frank的科学旅程 Profile of Joachim Frank文章的开头写道： If you were to look at Joachim Frank's recent papers, you might think he had spent his entire career studying how the ribosome converts mRNA into protein. On that subject alone he has enough publications in Nature and Science to span several careers. But in fact, Frank was introduced to the ribosome only after he had become one of the world's foremost experts in digital image analysis and electron microscopy. For his contributions to these fields, and to our understanding of the ribosome-one of the molecular machines that makes life as we know it possible-Frank was inducted into the National Academy of Sciences in 2007. （试译：如果看看Joachim Frank最近的论文，你可能会以为他的整个职业生涯都在研究ribosome如何将mRNA核糖体转换成蛋白质。尽在这个领域他已经在Science和Nature杂志上发表了足够好几辈子的论文。但事实上，Frank只是在成为世界上最重要的数字图像分析和电子显微镜专家之后才进入ribosome领域的研究。因为在这些领域的贡献，以及对ribosome这个使得我们所知的生命成为可能的分子机器的理解，Frank在2007年进入美国国家科学院。） 注： Frank当选美国国家科学院院士是2006年院士年会，正式加入美国国家科学院入院仪式是在2007年的院士年会。 文章接着介绍，Frank先在德国Freiburg大学（University of Freiburg）学习物理学，之后进入Munich大学（University of Munich）攻读硕士学位，研究内容为熔点下的金的电子衍射。通过这些研究，他产生了用电子衍射研究分子结构的想法，于是进入慕尼黑的蛋白和皮革马普研究所（Max Planck Institute for Eggwhite and Leather）跟X射线晶体学家Walter Hoppe攻读博士学位。有意思的是这个蛋白研究所是真正的蛋白或蛋清（eggwhite），而不是所谓的蛋白质（protein）。这个研究所后来并入了生物化学马普所（Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry）。在博士论文期间他接触了电子显微镜，发表了关于如何校正和准直图像的概念和方法，论文发表在德语的光学（Optik）杂志上。 1970年Frank获得博士学位后获得了Harkness奖学金。凭该项资助他到任何一个美国实验室从事两年的访问研究。他到美国的第一站，是美国航空航天局（NASA）在加州理工大学的喷气动力实验室（Jet Propulsion Laboratory-JPL）。尽管JPL不是做电子显微成像的地方，但他选择JPL的目的，是去学习那里最先进的图像处理技术（image processing）。JPL之后他去了UC Berkeley的Robert Glaeser实验室，Glaeser是研究Cryo-EM的先驱。在Berkeley六个月之后他又去了纽约Albany的康奈尔大学显微成像实验室，然后他就会德国去找全职工作。因为没能在德国找到全职工作，他只好再到英国剑桥大学卡文迪许实验室去做研究助理，期限两年。 在剑桥大学期间，Frank从事的是电子光学（electron optics）的研究。通过他在Berkeley进行的生物样品的测量，他相信大的蛋白质的图像只能通过图像平均的方法获得。于是他开始计算能够获得足够精确度的用于图像校准和获得有用信息的最低电子剂量。通过这些工作，他推导出了关于图像对比度、分辨率和电子剂量的基本方程式。他说：“（通过计算）我们相信对于一定大小的分子，这将能行。那确实是所有事情的根子上的最基本的方程。”1975年他还在剑桥大学的时候，他收到了纽约州Albany的公共卫生实验室（Wadsworth Center）的邀请去担任研究科学家（reserach scientist）。他说他或的这一工作的原因是因为他在Berkeley的时候写的一篇综述文章使得人们较早时候就将他的名字和电子显微技术和图像处理联系在了一起。 在此之后，Frank在Albany工作了30年，在那里他发展了Cryo-EM的单粒子图像重构方法（single-particle reconstruction approach）并且将其应用到ribosome的研究中。1986年纽约州立大学Albany分校成立公共卫生学院（School of Public Health），Frank成为该学院的教授。他于2006年当选为美国国家科学院生命科学领域的院士，并于2008年成为哥伦比亚大学生命科学系教授。 Joachim Frank科学生涯之有趣之处 Frank的科学生涯中让我比较感兴趣的事儿有两件。 第一是他在博士毕业之后能够获得资助而比较自由地在美国最好的几个实验室游学两年。在此期间他首先选择到JPL去学习图像处理技术，这是非常有远见的选择。灵活的跨学科的学术支持对于年轻人的训练和成长很有帮助。美国和欧洲发达国家之间的这种政府或者基金会资助的比较灵活和自由的各种层次上的学术交流和往来，从19世纪末和20世纪初以来就一直未有间断。中国1949年之后这样的交流几乎完全中断了将近三十年，在改革开放以来有所恢复，但是在灵活性和自由选择方面应该说还很有待促进和加强。 第二是他在英国做研究助理时获得纽约州Albany的公共卫生实验室（Wadsworth Center）的邀请去担任研究科学家，并且一直在那里从事基础性的前沿研究工作三十多年。我对Wadsworth Center不太了解，但从其性质和定位来讲是一个面向公共卫生应用相关的公共研究机构。不知道国内的地方性的公共实验室什么时候能够有这种机会，能够允许自己的研究科学家在从事应用相关的研究的时候，还能从事基础性的前沿研究。 Wadsworth Center网站链接： http://www.wadsworth.org/docs/mission.shtml 人们常常说国内的科研体制缺乏研究自由。其实以我多年的研究经验来看，国内的基础性的研究机构和大学常常是在研究定位上过于自由，缺乏清楚明确的研究目标和定位，同时应用性的研究机构又非常缺乏人事、资助方式和研究方向上的灵活性，而且不同的研究机构之间比较缺少互动。这样导致的结果常常是基础研究中培养的人才不仅质量不够高，而且还比较缺乏研究目标和解决实际科学问题的兴趣；而应用研究中培养的人才比较缺乏学术和研究水准，对于实际应用研究中能够提炼出来的基础和重要的科学问题缺乏认识和感觉。要改变这种状况，需要必要的研究体系，使研究机构和主管单位自身在目标定位、资助方式、学术与人才交流等方面在具有较为明确的定位的同时还具有足够的开放性与充分的灵活性。这些问题说来话长，解决起来也并非那么容易。但如果不能改善，每年政府和社会投入的教育和研究经费，其效果自然会被大打折扣。 这些问题在Frank的经历中可以说是不存在的。 不用晶体的晶体学（Crystallography without crystals） 据专家说，蛋白质和大分子晶体学的前沿是不用晶体的晶体学。 按照Weill Cornell Medical College的神经科学教授Greg Petsko于2014年在美国化学会化学与工程新闻（CEN News）纪念X射线晶体学发展100周年的题为《不用晶体的晶体学》（Crystallography without crystals）文章中的介绍，Cryo-EM是蛋白质晶体学研究中的一大颠覆性技术，这一颠覆性技术已经带来了非常重要的突破。而蛋白质晶体学领域的另一个正在发展的颠覆性技术则是建立在自由电子激光（free-electron laser）技术上的超快X射线晶体学。这两种技术之所以具有颠覆性，正是因为他们是不用晶体的晶体学。 美国化学会CEN上Crystallography without crystals文章链接： http://cen.xraycrystals.org/essay-on-the-future-of-crystallography.html 正是由于了解Cryo-EM技术的逐渐成熟使其已经成为蛋白质晶体学研究中的颠覆性技术，施一公才在几年前就开始带领他在清华的结构生物学研究组迅速地进入这一领域，现在已经取得了不错的成绩。能够迅速利用新的研究工具进入新的研究领域，这对于提高国内科学研究水平本身很重要。从长远来看，国内科学研究水平的提高，应该还需要有能够产生更为原创性的研究工作，比如说，类似于Cryo-EM这样的颠覆性技术工作，的环境与机制。 技术和方法的领先 近代科学前沿的发展，多数情况下是研究方法和研究技术的发展。新的方法和研究技术，不仅包括新的概念，而更为重要的是新的研究技术和工具。在此基础上，新的应用和研究新问题才成为可能。 1986年诺贝尔化学奖获得者杜德利·赫希巴赫（Dudley Herschbach）在回顾他自己的科学生涯的文章中（Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem., 51，1-39，2000.）有这样一段话： In his book Imagined Worlds, Freeman Dyson asserts that newdirections in science are launched by new tools much more often than by new concepts. He says, “The effect of a concept-driven revolution is to explain old things in new ways. The effect of a tool-driven revolution is to discover new things that have to be explained.” I would add that new tools or methods often emerge from a symbiotic interaction of old tools and concepts in fresh combinations.That is a good reason for young scientists to learn something about the historical development of their field. （试译：（理论物理学家）Freeman Dyson在他的Imagined Worlds一书中宣称，科学中新的方向更多地是由新的科学研究工具而不是由新的概念所带来的。他说“由概念所推动的革命是用新的方式解释已有的事物，而由工具所推动的革命则是去发现必须得到解释的新的事物”。我需要补充的是新的工具或者方法是通过旧的工具和方法以崭新的方式共生相互作用而产生的。这正是年轻科学家去了解自己领域的历史发展的好的理由。 Dyson在Imagined Worlds一书中是这样说的（Freeman Dyson,Imagined Worlds, Harvard UniversityPress,1997. pp.49-50.）： There are two kinds of scientific revolutions, those driven by new tools and those driven by new concepts. Thomas Kuhn in his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, talked almost exclusively about concepts and hardly at all about tools. His idea of a scientific revolution is based on a single example, the revolution in theoretical physics that occurred in the 1920s with the advent of quantum mechanics. This was a prime example of a concept-driven revolution. Kuhn's book was so brilliantly written that it became an instant classic. It misled a whole generation of students and historians of science into believing that all scientific revolutions are concept driven. The concept driven revolutions are the ones that attract the most attention and have the greatest impact on the public awareness of science, but in fact they are comparatively rare. In the last 500 years, in addition to the quantum mechanical revolution that Kuhn took as his model, we have had six major concept driven revolutions, associated with the names of Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Maxwell, Freud, and Einstein. During the same period there have been about twenty tool-driven revolutions, not so impressive to the general public but of equal importance to the progress of science. Two prime examples of tool-driven revolutions are the Galilean revolution resulting from the use of the telescope in astronomy, and the Crick-Watson revolution resulting from the use of X ray diffraction to determine the structure of big molecules in biology. The effect of a concept-driven revolution is to explain old things in new ways. The effect of a tool-driven revolution is to discover new things that have to be explained. In almost every branch of science, and especially in biology and astronomy, there has been a preponderance of tool-driven revolutions. We have been more successful in discovering new things than in explaining old ones. In recent times my own field of physics has had great success in creating new tools that have started revolutions in biology and astronomy. Physics has been less successful in creating new concepts with which to understand its own discoveries. （试译：科学革命分两种，即那些由新工具驱动和由新概念驱动的科学革命。托马斯·库恩在其名著《科学革命的结构》中谈到几乎全是有关概念带来的革命，而对工具带来的革命鲜有提及。他的科学革命的想法仅基于一个简单的例子，即发生在20世纪20年代与量子力学的出现所带来的理论物理的革命。这是一个概念驱动的革命的最显著的例子。库恩的书写得很精彩并且很快成为经典。但它误导了整整一代学习科学的学生和科学史家去相信似乎所有的科学革命都是概念驱动的。这个概念驱动的革命吸引了最多的关注并且对公众的科学意识影响巨大，但实际上概念驱动的科学革命相对来说（在历史上）是比较少见的。在过去500年，除了被库恩当作模型的量子力学革命，有六大概念推动的科学革命，这些科学革命与哥白尼，牛顿，达尔文，麦克斯韦，弗洛伊德和爱因斯坦的名字联系在一起。而在在同一时期也出现了大概二十个由工具驱动的革命，但对一般公众来讲它们不是那么令人印象深刻。工具驱动的两个典型的例子是在天文观测中使用望远镜所导致的伽利略革命，以及由使用X射线衍射确定生物大分子结构带来的克里克-沃森革命。 概念驱动的革命的效果是以新的方式解释旧的事物。工具驱动的革命的效果是发现新的必须被解释的事物。几乎在科学每一个分支，尤其是在生物学和天文学领域，工具驱动的革命一直是在数量上占优。我们在发现新的事物上总是比在解释旧的事物更为成功。近来在我自己从事的物理学领域也一直在创造在生物学和天文学带来革命的新工具上取得更为巨大的成功。物理学在发展新概念来了解自己领域的新发现方面的成功要少得多。） Cryo-EM技术和工具的发展，正是应验了Dyson上面的说法。研究工具推动的科学革命，需要具有颠覆性的新技术的出现。 另外，新的技术和工具的发展，离不开灵活与自由的工业和技术产业的发展，同时也会促进高技术产业的发展。据说用于Cryo-EM的高分辨和快速成像的探测器就需要百万美元上下。在Cryo-EM的应用推广过程中，昂贵的Cryo-EM仪器和软件，本身就会形成重要的高技术产业。在发达国家，高技术产业和科学前沿的发展常常是紧密结合并进的。这正是中国和其它发展中国家的短板。 龟兔赛跑 从我自己的研究经验谈来讲，发展新的仪器和技术，才有机会在相关研究领域中取得领先。 我们过去几年在美国西北太平洋国家实验室发展的亚波数分辨率的宽带和频振动光谱仪，在七八年前就和美国相干激光公司科研激光部门来回讨论定下了技术方案。我们这套仪器从2009底开始搭建，2011年开始出数据，将光谱分辨率在之前的仪器基础上提高了将近20倍。然后我们在过去三四年中陆续发表一系列的论文，一方面发展理论原理和系统的数据分析方法，另一方面探索在不同领域的全新的应用。到目前为止，世界上还没有第二个实验室能够获得同样的数据（也许快了）。 也许不少人在等待我们用新的仪器把相对重要的问题都翻一遍再准备跟进，如果是这样，当他们弄到经费再建好仪器开始获得数据并开展研究，大概已经快到2020年了。 最近从新闻上听说原来的东家中国科学院在推行所谓“率先行动”。“率先行动”究竟怎么个“率先”法，我不在其中，自然不知其味。不管怎么说，要真能率先，俺肯定是支持的。 不然的话，跟在兔子屁股后面的乌龟，除了拖住兔子的后腿，或者期待兔子在途中打瞌睡，还能有些啥想法呢？ 注：几个月前就在考虑就这个问题写点什么，现在才拉拉杂杂地写了这些。感谢大学同学林文斌教授在一次微信聊天的时候提到上面Greg Petsko在CEN News上的评论。
Richard A. Berger, MD (Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Chicago). Richard A. Berger医生（美国芝加哥拉什大学中西部骨科） Richard A. Berger医生主要从事微创膝关节置换和微创髋关节置换。除了临床工作外，Richard A. Berger医生不断在发明膝关节手术和髋关节手术中所用的手术器械、手术方法及新的植入假体。Richard A. Berger医生在波士顿麻省理工学院获得机械工程学位。这样的学习背景使他后来更有助于发明新的微创手术器械及性别特异型人工关节假体。Richard A. Berger医生受过Zimmer 微创手术策略培训。Richard A. Berger医生经常出现在当地有关膝关节手术的新闻报道里面。Richard A. Berger医生在2009年曾经获得芝加哥杂志的最佳医生称号。Richard A. Berger医生在美国马萨诸塞州大波士顿区的梅德福塔夫茨大学获得医学学位，在匹兹堡大学完成其住院医师培训。Richard A. Berger医生在芝加哥拉什大学医学中心完成关节置换的进修。 Richard A. Berger医生在美国芝加哥 拉什大学中西部骨科网站上的主页链接： http://www.rushortho.com/richard_berger.cfm Richard A. Berger医生的膝关节和髋关节个人网站链接： http://www.outpatienthipandknee.com/ 70位美国最好的膝关节专家名单链接： http://www.beckersorthopedicandspine.com/lists/item/2626-70-of-the-best-knee-surgeons-in-america?qh=YTo4OntpOjA7czo0OiJrbmVlIjtpOjE7czo1OiJrbmVlcyI7aToyO3M6Njoia25lZSdzIjtpOjM7czo4OiJzdXJnZW9ucyI7aTo0O3M6Nzoic3VyZ2VvbiI7aTo1O3M6OToic3VyZ2VvbnMnIjtpOjY7czo5OiJzdXJnZW9uJ3MiO2k6NztzOjEzOiJrbmVlIHN1cmdlb25zIjt9 江苏省徐州医学院附属医院骨科 关节镜、膝肩肘关节外科、骨科运动创伤方向 高绪仁 高绪仁：每天以解决膝、肩、肘关节问题为乐：） 每天努力提高自己的技术和服务水平 不仅仅是解决其膝、肩、肘关节问题，更是给其带来希望、未来和新生！
Richard Axel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Axel Key papers § Buck L, Axel R (April 1991). "A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: a molecular basis for odor recognition". Cell 65 (1): 175–87. DOI : 10.1016/0092-8674(91)90418-X . PMID 1840504 . This is the paper in which Linda B. Buck and Axel first describe the discovery of the odorant receptors, which was the basis for their shared Nobel Prize. § Pellicer A, Wigler M, Axel R, Silverstein S (May 1978). "The transfer and stable integration of the HSV thymidine kinase gene into mouse cells". Cell 14 (1): 133–41. DOI : 10.1016/0092-8674(78)90308-2 . PMID 208776 . § Pellicer A, Robins D, Wold B, et al. (September 1980). "Altering genotype and phenotype by DNA-mediated gene transfer". Science 209 (4463): 1414–22. DOI : 10.1126/science.7414320 . PMID 7414320 . These are the papers describing DNA transfection, a critical tool for the entire revolution in biology, in which genes can be modified and then stably transferred into cells. This paper was the basis for the "Axel patent" which at one time brought Columbia University as much as $100 million per year. Selected other publications in chronological order § Axel R, Schlom J, Spiegelman S (January 1972). "Presence in human breast cancer of RNA homologous to mouse mammary tumour virus RNA". Nature 235 (5332): 32–6. DOI : 10.1038/235032a0 . PMID 4332799 . § Weinstein IB, Gebert R, Stadler UC, Orenstein JM, Axel R (December 1972). "Type C virus from cell cultures of chemically induced rat hepatomas". Science 178 (4065): 1098–100. DOI : 10.1126/science.178.4065.1098 . PMID 4343844 . § McAllister LB, Scheller RH, Kandel ER, Axel R (November 1983). "In situ hybridization to study the origin and fate of identified neurons". Science 222 (4625): 800–8. DOI : 10.1126/science.6356362 . PMID 6356362 . § Gay D, Maddon P, Sekaly R, et al. (1987). "Functional interaction between human T-cell protein CD4 and the major histocompatibility complex HLA-DR antigen". Nature 328 (6131): 626–9. DOI : 10.1038/328626a0 . PMID 3112582 . § Julius D, MacDermott AB, Axel R, Jessell TM (July 1988). "Molecular characterization of a functional cDNA encoding the serotonin 1c receptor". Science 241 (4865): 558–64. DOI : 10.1126/science.3399891 . PMID 3399891 . § Deen KC, McDougal JS, Inacker R, et al. (January 1988). "A soluble form of CD4 (T4) protein inhibits AIDS virus infection". Nature 331 (6151): 82–4. DOI : 10.1038/331082a0 . PMID 3257544 . § Julius D, Livelli TJ, Jessell TM, Axel R (June 1989). "Ectopic expression of the serotonin 1c receptor and the triggering of malignant transformation". Science 244 (4908): 1057–62. DOI : 10.1126/science.2727693 . PMID 2727693 . § Ryu SE, Kwong PD, Truneh A, et al. (November 1990). "Crystal structure of an HIV-binding recombinant fragment of human CD4". Nature 348 (6300): 419–26. DOI : 10.1038/348419a0 . PMID 2247146 . § Robey EA, Ramsdell F, Kioussis D, et al. (June 1992). "The level of CD8 expression can determine the outcome of thymic selection". Cell 69 (7): 1089–96. DOI : 10.1016/0092-8674(92)90631-L . PMID 1617724 . § Ngai J, Dowling MM, Buck L, Axel R, Chess A (March 1993). "The family of genes encoding odorant receptors in the channel catfish". Cell 72 (5): 657–66. DOI : 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90395-7 . PMID 7916654 . § Ngai J, Chess A, Dowling MM, Necles N, Macagno ER, Axel R (March 1993). "Coding of olfactory information: topography of odorant receptor expression in the catfish olfactory epithelium". Cell 72 (5): 667–80. DOI : 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90396-8 . PMID 8453662 . § Vassar R, Ngai J, Axel R (July 1993). "Spatial segregation of odorant receptor expression in the mammalian olfactory epithelium". Cell 74 (2): 309–18. DOI : 10.1016/0092-8674(93)90422-M . PMID 8343958 . § Chess A, Simon I, Cedar H, Axel R (September 1994). "Allelic inactivation regulates olfactory receptor gene expression". Cell 78 (5): 823–34. DOI : 10.1016/S0092-8674(94)90562-2 . PMID 8087849 . § Vassar R, Chao SK, Sitcheran R, Nuez JM, Vosshall LB, Axel R (December 1994). "Topographic organization of sensory projections to the olfactory bulb". Cell 79 (6): 981–91. DOI : 10.1016/0092-8674(94)90029-9 . PMID 8001145 . § Dulac C, Axel R (October 1995). "A novel family of genes encoding putative pheromone receptors in mammals". Cell 83 (2): 195–206. DOI : 10.1016/0092-8674(95)90161-2 . PMID 7585937 . § Mombaerts P, Wang F, Dulac C, et al. (November 1996). "Visualizing an olfactory sensory map". Cell 87 (4): 675–86. DOI : 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81387-2 . PMID 8929536 . § Amrein H, Axel R (February 1997). "Genes expressed in neurons of adult male Drosophila". Cell 88 (4): 459–69. DOI : 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81886-3 . PMID 9038337 . § Wang F, Nemes A, Mendelsohn M, Axel R (April 1998). "Odorant receptors govern the formation of a precise topographic map". Cell 93 (1): 47–60. DOI : 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81145-9 . PMID 9546391 . § Vosshall LB, Amrein H, Morozov PS, Rzhetsky A, Axel R (March 1999). "A spatial map of olfactory receptor expression in the Drosophila antenna". Cell 96 (5): 725–36. DOI : 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80582-6 . PMID 10089887 . § Belluscio L, Koentges G, Axel R, Dulac C (April 1999). "A map of pheromone receptor activation in the mammalian brain". Cell 97 (2): 209–20. DOI : 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80731-X . PMID 10219242 . § Vosshall LB, Wong AM, Axel R (July 2000). "An olfactory sensory map in the fly brain". Cell 102 (2): 147–59. DOI : 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)00021-0 . PMID 10943836 . § Gogos JA, Osborne J, Nemes A, Mendelsohn M, Axel R (November 2000). "Genetic ablation and restoration of the olfactory topographic map". Cell 103 (4): 609–20. DOI : 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)00164-1 . PMID 11106731 . § Scott K, Brady R, Cravchik A, et al. (March 2001). "A chemosensory gene family encoding candidate gustatory and olfactory receptors in Drosophila". Cell 104 (5): 661–73. DOI : 10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00263-X . PMID 11257221 . § Wong AM, Wang JW, Axel R (April 2002). "Spatial representation of the glomerular map in the Drosophila protocerebrum". Cell 109 (2): 229–41. DOI : 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00707-9 . PMID 12007409 . § Wang JW, Wong AM, Flores J, Vosshall LB, Axel R (January 2003). "Two-photon calcium imaging reveals an odor-evoked map of activity in the fly brain". Cell 112 (2): 271–82. DOI : 10.1016/S0092-8674(03)00004-7 . PMID 12553914 . § Cutforth T, Moring L, Mendelsohn M, et al. (August 2003). "Axonal ephrin-As and odorant receptors: coordinate determination of the olfactory sensory map". Cell 114 (3): 311–22. DOI : 10.1016/S0092-8674(03)00568-3 . PMID 12914696 . § Eggan K, Baldwin K, Tackett M, et al. (March 2004). "Mice cloned from olfactory sensory neurons". Nature 428 (6978): 44–9. DOI : 10.1038/nature02375 . PMID 14990966 . § Barnea G, O'Donnell S, Mancia F, et al. (June 2004). "Odorant receptors on axon termini in the brain". Science 304 (5676): 1468. DOI : 10.1126/science.1096146 . PMID 15178793 . § Shykind BM, Rohani SC, O'Donnell S, et al. (June 2004). "Gene switching and the stability of odorant receptor gene choice". Cell 117 (6): 801–15. DOI : 10.1016/j.cell.2004.05.015 . PMID 15186780 . § Lomvardas S, Barnea G, Pisapia DJ, Mendelsohn M, Kirkland J, Axel R (July 2006). "Interchromosomal interactions and olfactory receptor choice". Cell 126 (2): 403–13. DOI : 10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.035 . PMID 16873069 .
美国科学院在今年一月份举行了In the Light of Evolution VI: Brain and Behavior会议 连接地址： http://www.nasonline.org/programs/sackler-colloquia/completed_colloquia/evolution_vi.html 在主页上讲了一个故事。关于大脑进化的争论和发展。 达尔文从来没有写关于大脑方面的文章，但是达尔文的反对者，Richard Owen认为人与猿类的大脑具有基本的不一样（PS：应该是从这个观点去反对人类的起源）。这个观点激怒了达尔文的继承者（bulldog） 赫胥黎。 达尔文没有直接回应这个论点，而是让极力支持达尔文理论的 赫胥黎在他《人类的起源》（ Descent of Man）第二版中写一章：《on the resemblances and differences in the structure and the development of the brain in man and apes》。 赫胥黎在这篇文章中显示人和猿类具有相似的大脑结构，只不过人的大脑更大些，反击了Richard Owen的观点。从此，达尔文继承者开始关注大脑的进化。此次会议主要回顾 从Owen-Huxley debate开始150年来关于的大脑进化相关研究工作，组织杰出科学家在这方面的工作，揭示两个方面的问题，神经系统是怎么和为什么进化成如此复杂？ Darwin never wrote much about the brain, but Darwin’s nemesis, Richard Owen, tried in 1861 to protect humans from Darwin’s threatening ideas by arguing that human brains differ fundamentally from those of other apes. This argument provoked a spirited attack by Darwin’s “bulldog,” T. H. Huxley. Darwin did not comment publicly on this controversy, but for the second edition of his Descent of Man, Darwin asked Huxley to write an essay “on the resemblances and differences in the structure and the development of the brain in man and apes.” This essay was a forceful attack on Owen’s argument and showed convincingly that human brains are like fairly typical ape brains, although larger. Thus the Darwinians began to contemplate evolving brains. This colloquium surveyed what has been learned about brain evolution in the 150 years since the Owen-Huxley debate, bringing together leading scientists whose work illuminates the twin questions of how and why complex nervous systems evolved. 最新PNAS（美国科学院院刊）的为这个会议出了一期专刊，如下。是开源的，大家都可以下载。 INTRODUCTION In the light of evolution VI: Brain and behavior Georg F. Striedter, John C. Avise, and Francisco J. Ayala COLLOQUIUM Functionalization of a protosynaptic gene expression network Cecilia Conaco, Danielle S. Bassett, Hongjun Zhou, Mary Luz Arcila, Sandie M. Degnan, Bernard M. Degnan, and Kenneth S. Kosik Adaptive evolution of voltage-gated sodium channels: The first 800 million years Harold H. Zakon Evolution of centralized nervous systems: Two schools of evolutionary thought R. Glenn Northcutt Evolving specialization of the arthropod nervous system Erin Jarvis, Heather S. Bruce, and Nipam H. Patel Expansion, folding, and abnormal lamination of the chick optic tectum after intraventricular injections of FGF2 Luke D. McGowan, Roula A. Alaama, Amanda C. Freise, Johnny C. Huang, Christine J. Charvet, and Georg F. Striedter Cortical evolution in mammals: The bane and beauty of phenotypic variability Leah A. Krubitzer and Adele M. H. Seelke Evolution of columns, modules, and domains in the neocortex of primates Jon H. Kaas The remarkable, yet not extraordinary, human brain as a scaled-up primate brain and its associated cost Suzana Herculano-Houzel Homology and homoplasy of swimming behaviors and neural circuits in the Nudipleura (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia) James M. Newcomb, Akira Sakurai, Joshua L. Lillvis, Charuni A. Gunaratne, and Paul S. Katz Shared developmental and evolutionary origins for neural basis of vocal–acoustic and pectoral–gestural signaling Andrew H. Bass and Boris P. Chagnaud To flock or fight: Neurochemical signatures of divergent life histories in sparrows James L. Goodson, Leah C. Wilson, and Sara E. Schrock From chemotaxis to the cognitive map: The function of olfaction Lucia F. Jacobs Evolution of brains and behavior for optimal foraging: A tale of two predators Kenneth C. Catania Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery Todd M. Preuss Integration of faces and vocalizations in ventral prefrontal cortex: Implications for the evolution of audiovisual speech Lizabeth M. Romanski Math, monkeys, and the developing brain Jessica F. Cantlon A hierarchical model of the evolution of human brain specializations H. Clark Barrett
Richard Xiao's profile update here: Qualifications PhD in Linguistics (University of Lancaster) MA in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics (Nanjing Normal University/Hohai University) BA in English Language and Literature (Soochow University) Postgraduate Certificate in Research Degree Supervision (Edge Hill University) Membership AHRC Peer Review College Editorial Board of Chinese Language and Discourse Editorial Board of Corpora Editorial Board of Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice Editorial Board of Languages in Contrast Editorial Board of GLOSSA British Association of Chinese Studies British Chinese Language Teaching Society European Association of Chinese Linguistics The Standing Council of the Corpus Linguistics Society of China Teaching and supervision Chinese language and culture modules: Mandarin Chinese at all levels, introduction to modern China, Chinese culture and society Contrastive and translation studies: introduction to translation studies, English-Chinese translation, Chinese-English translation, translation technology, English and Chinese in contrast English language and linguistics: introduction to English language, functional grammar, semantics, intercultural communication, bilingualism, corpus linguistics Dr Xiao’s research is essentially corpus-based and empirical in nature. He welcomes research students interested in the following areas: Corpus Linguistics, Contrastive and Translation Studies of English and Chinese, Tense and Aspect Theory, English Language and Linguistics, and Chinese Linguistics. Major research areas corpus linguistics contrastive and translation studies Chinese language and culture English language and linguistics tense and aspect theory Research grants National Foundation of Social Science (China): Developing and processing a super-large-scale English-Chinese parallel corpus, CNY500,000, Co-Investigator, 2011-2014. Edge Hill University REF Investment Fund: Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies: Recent Developments, 2,980, 2010-2011 National Foundation of Social Science (China): A corpus-based quantitative study of translational Chinese in English-Chinese translation, CNY90,000, Principle Investigator, 2007 - 2011. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC): A corpus-based study of split words in Chinese (with Anna Siewierska, Lancaster University), 81,304, 2008 - 2009. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC): Contrasting English and Chinese (with Tony McEnery, Lancaster University), 139,894, 2004 - 2007 (Assessed as “Outstanding”). Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC): Contrasting tense and aspect in English and Chinese: A corpus-based perspective (with Tony McEnery, Lancaster University), 49,000, 2003 - 2004. Scholarly activity Assessment for research councils ESRC AHRC National Science Foundation (NSF, USA) Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC, Canada) Research Grants Council (RGC, Hong Kong) Book proposal review Routledge Palgrave Macmillan Journal refereeing Applied Linguistics (Oxford University Press) Corpora (Edinburgh University Press) Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (de Gruyter) Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice (China) GLOSSA (Puerto Rico) International Journal of Corpus Linguistics (John Benjamins) Issues in Applied Linguistics (UCLA) Journal of Languages and Culture (Academic Journals) Journal of Pragmatics (Elsevier) Languages in Contrast (John Benjamins) Language Learning (Blackwell) Linguistics (de Gruyter) Literary and Linguistic Computing (Oxford University Press) Modern Language Journal (Blackwell) Studies in Language (John Benjamins) Target (John Benjamins) TESL Canada Journal (TESL Canada) World Englishes (Blackwell) Conference organising Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies 2008 (UCCTS2008), Zhejiang University, September 2008 Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies 2010 (UCCTS2010), Edge Hill University, July 2010 Corpus Linguistics in China 2011 (CLIC 2011), Beijing Foreign Studies University, 19-20th November 2011 Publications Authored books and edited collections Xiao, R. (Forthcoming) Corpus-Based Studies of Translational Chinese in English-Chinese Translation . Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaotong University Press. Xiao, R. (ed.) (Forthcoming) Corpus-Based Contrastive and Translation Studies: Recent Developments . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Xiao, R. T. McEnery (2010) Corpus-Based Contrastive Studies of English and Chinese . London: Routledge. Xiao, R. (ed.) (2010) Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies . Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Xiao, R. (ed.) (2010) Proceedings of the International Symposium of Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (UCCTS) 2010 . Ormskirk: Edge Hill University. Xiao, R., P. Rayson T. McEnery (2009) A Frequency Dictionary of Mandarin Chinese: Core vocabulary for learners . London: Routledge. Xiao, R., L. He M. Yue (eds) (2008) Proceedings of the International Symposium of Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (UCCTS) 2008 . Hangzhou: Zhejiang University. McEnery, T., R. Xiao Y. Tono (2006) Corpus-based Language Studies . London: Routledge. Xiao, R. T. McEnery (2004) Aspect in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Xiao, R. (2000) The Leader (translated monograph of management series). Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press. Journal articles Xiao, R. (2011) Word clusters and reformulation markers in Chinese and English: Implications for translation universal hypotheses. Languages in Contrast 11(2): 145-171. Xiao, R. G. Dai (2011) A new framework for translation studies and teaching: A comprehensive review of corpus-based translation studies. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice . 2011(1): 8-15. Dai, G R. Xiao (Forthcoming) “SL shining through” in translational language: A corpus-based study of Chinese translation of English passives. Translation Quarterly . Dai, G R. Xiao (Forthcoming) Reformulation markers in translational Chinese. Foreign Language and Literature . Xiao, R. (2010) How different is translated Chinese from native Chinese. International Journal of Corpus Linguistic s 15(1): 5-35. Siewierska, A., J. Xu R. Xiao (2010) Bang-le yi ge da mang (offered a big helping hand): A corpus study of the splittable compounds in spoken and written Chinese. Language Sciences 32(1): 464-487. Xiao, R. G. Dai (2010) In pursuit of the “third code”: A study of translation universals based on the ZCTC corpus of translational Chinese. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 42(1): 53-61. Xiao, R. G. Dai (2010) Using corpora in language pedagogy: A case study of passive constructions in Chinese learner English. Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition) . 40(4): 189-200. Xiao, R. G. Dai (2010) Idioms and word clusters in translational Chinese: A corpus-based study. Foreign Language Research 2010 (3). Dai, G. and R. Xiao (2010) Corpus-based studies on explicitation in translation. The Chinese Translators Journal 2010(1): 76-80. Xiao, R. (2009) Multidimensional analysis and the study of world Englishes. World Englishes 28(4): 421-450. Multidimensional analysis and the study of world Englishes.pdf Xiao, R. (2009) Review of Warp and Weft: Chinese Language and Culture by Keekok Lee. Times Higher Education , No. 1887 (12-18 March 2009): 52. Xiao, R. (2009) Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. International Academic Development 29(5): 3-4. Xiao, R. and G. Dai (2009) Negation in English: A corpus-based study (in Chinese). Foreign Language and Literature 2009(4): 228-236 Xiao, R. T. McEnery (2008) Negation in Chinese: A corpus-based study. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 36(2): 274-330. Xiao, R. J. Xu (2008) Corpora and language education. Foreign Language Education in China 1(2): 50-60. Xiao, R. H. Tao (2007) A corpus-based sociolinguistic study of amplifiers in British English. Sociolinguistic Studies 1(2): 241-273. Xiao, R. (2007) What can SLA learn from contrastive corpus linguistics? The case of passive constructions in Chinese learner English. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching 3(2): 1-19. Xiao, R. T. McEnery (2006). Collocation, semantic prosody and near synonymy: a cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics 27(1): 103-129. Xiao, R. T. McEnery (2006). Can completive and durative adverbials function as tests for telicity? Evidence from English and Chinese. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1): 1-21. Xiao, R., T. McEnery Y. Qian (2006) Passive constructions in English and Chinese: a corpus-based contrastive study. Languages in Contrast 6(1): 109-149. Xiao, R. (2006) Review of Xaira: An XML Aware Indexing and Retrieval Architecture. Corpora 1(1): 99-103. Xiao, R. T. McEnery. (2005) Two approaches to genre analysis: three genres in modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics (33)1: 62-82. Two Approaches to Genre Analysis Three Genres in Modern American English.pdf Xiao, R. T. McEnery (2004) A corpus-based two-level model of situation aspect. Journal of Linguistics 40(2): 325-363. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2005) Help or help to: what do corpora have to say? English Studies 86(2): 161-187. McEnery, T. R. Xiao. (2004) Swearing in modern British English: the case of fuck in the BNC. Language and Literature 13(3): 235-268. Baker, P., A. Hardie, T. McEnery, R. Xiao, K. Bontcheva, H. Cunningham, R. Gaizauskas, O. Hamza, D. Maynard, V. Tablan, C. Ursu, B. Jayaram M. Leisher. (2004) Corpus linguistics and South Asian languages: Corpus creation and tool development, Literary and Linguistic Computing 19(4): 509-524. Xiao, R. (2003) Use of parallel and comparable corpora in language study. English Education in China 2003(1). McEnery, T., R. Xiao L. Mo (2003) Aspect Marking in English and Chinese: Using the Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese for contrastive language study. Literary and Linguistic Computing 18(4): 361-378. Xiao, R. T. McEnery (2002) Situation aspect as a universal aspect: implications for artificial languages. Journal of Universal Language 3(2): 139-77. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2002) Domains, text types, aspect marking and English-Chinese translation. Languages in Contrast 2(2):51-69. Book chapters Xiao, R. (2010) Corpus creation. In N. Indurkhya F. Damerau (eds) The Handbook of Natural Language Processing (2nd ed.), 147-165. London: CRC Press. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2010) What corpora can offer in language teaching and learning. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (Vol. 2). London and New York: Routledge. Xiao, R., L. He and M. Yue (2010) In pursuit of the “third code”: Using the ZJU Corpus of Translational Chinese in Translation Studies. In R. Xiao (ed.) Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies . Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 182-214. Xiao, R. M. Yue (2009) Using corpora in Translation Studies: The state of the art. In P. Baker (ed.) Contemporary Corpus Linguistics , 237-262. London: Continuum. Xiao, R. (2009) Theory-driven corpus research: using corpora to inform aspect theory. In A. Lüdeling M. Kyto (eds) Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 987-1007. Xiao, R. (2008) Well-known and influential corpora. In A. Lüdeling M. Kyto (eds) Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 383-457. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2007) Parallel and comparable corpora: What is happening? In M. Rogers and G. Anderman (eds) Incorporating Corpora. The Linguist and the Translator . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 18-31. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2007) Parallel and comparable corpora: The state of play. In Y. Kawaguchi, T. Takagaki, N. Tomimori and Y. Tsuruga (eds) Corpus-Based Perspectives in Linguistics . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 131–145. Xiao, R. T. Mcenery (2005) Situation aspect: A two-level approach. In B. Hollebrandse, A. van Hout and C. Vet (eds) Crosslinguistic Views on Tense, Aspect and Modality . Amsterdam: Rodopi. 185-200. Xiao, R. T. McEnery. (2005) A corpus-based approach to tense and aspect in English-Chinese translation. In W. Pan, H. Fu, X. Luo, M. Chase J. Walls (eds) Translation and Contrastive Studies . Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 114-157. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2005) Character encoding in corpus construction. In M. Wynne (ed.) Developing Linguistic Corpora: A Guide to Good Practice . Oxford: AHDS. 47-58. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2005). A corpus-based approach to tense and aspect in English-Chinese translation. In J. Schwitalla and W. Wegstein (Hg.) Korpuslinguistik deutsch: synchron - diachron - kontrastiv . Niemeyer: Tübingen. 27-50. Wang, K., R. Xiao X. Yang (2004) Corpora and bilingual corpora. In K. Wang (ed.) The Development of the Compilation and Application of Parallel Corpora . Beijing: Foreign Language Education and Research Press. 3-16. Xiao, R. (2004) Distribution of aspect markers in English and Chinese. In K. Wang (ed.) The Development of the Compilation and Application of Parallel Corpora . Beijing: Foreign Language Education and Research Press. 108-118. Conferences presentations Xiao, R. (2011) Corpus-based language pedagogy in Chinese context. Invited talk at the Workshop on Corpora and Chinese Language Teaching and Learning, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, 2-3 November, 2011. Xiao, R. (2011) Can “translation universals” survive in English-Chinese translation? Invited talk at the Symposium “In Search of the Universal Features of Translation across Languages: Corpus-based Translation Studies in China and other Countries” of the 16th World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA2011), Beijing Foreign Studies University, 23-28 August 2011. Xiao, R. (2011) Contrastive Corpus Linguistics: Cross-linguistic contrast of English and Chinese. Invited talk at the Roundtable Conference on Linguistic Corpus and Corpus Linguistics in the Chinese Context. Hong Kong Institute of Education, 6-8 th May 2011. Xiao, R. (2010) Can “translation universals” survive in Mandarin? Idioms, word clusters and reformulation markers in translational Chinese. Paper presented at the Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (UCCTS) 2010 conference, Edge Hill University, 27-29 July 2010. Dai, G R. Xiao (2010) “SL shining through” in translational language: A corpus-based study of Chinese translation of English. Paper presented at the Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (UCCTS) 2010 conference, Edge Hill University, 27-29 July 2010. Xiao, R. (2009) How different is translated Chinese from native Chinese? Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2009 conference. Liverpool University, 21-23 July 2009. Xiao, R. (2009) How can corpora help in language pedagogy? Keynote lecture at the Postgraduate Conference in Applied Linguistics. Nottingham University Ningbo, China. 26-27 June 2009. Xiao, R. and G. Dai (2009) In search of the third code: Translation universal research based on translated Chinese. Paper presented at the First National Conference on Corpus Translation Studies. Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai. 24-25 October 2009. Siewierska, A., J. Xu R. Xiao (2009) Verb compounds within canonical typology: Chinese separable verb compounds. Paper presented at the conference of Verb Typologies Revisited. University of Gent, 5-7 Feb 2009. Xu, J., A. Siewierska R. Xiao (2009) Corpus informed approach to Canonical Typology: With special reference to separable verb compounds in Mandarin. Paper presented at the conference of Creating Infrastructure for Canonical Typology. University of Surrey, 9 - 10 January 2009. Xiao, R. (2008) Classifiers in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study. Paper presented at COST A31 conference on the Boundaries of Classification: Definitions, Processes and Adaptability. University of Kent, Canterbury, 15-18 September 2008. Xiao, R. (2008) Using an enhanced MDA approach in study of world Englishes. Paper presented at the 4th International IVACS Conference. University of Limerick, 13-14 June 2008. Xiao, R., L. He M. Yue (2008) In pursuit of the third code: Using the ZJU Corpus of Translational Chinese in Translation Studies. Paper presented at the international symposium on Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. 25-27 September 2008, Zhejiang University. Siewierska, A., J. Xu R. Xiao (2008) Splitable verb-noun compounds in spoken and written Chinese. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea Languages in Contrast. Grammar, Translation, University of Bologna, Forlì, 17-20 September 2008. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2007) Quantifying constructions in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study. Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2007. 28-30 July 2007, Birmingham University. Xiao, R. (2006) Using corpora to study classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Invited talk given at the Working Groups Meeting of COST Action A31: Stability and adaptation of classification systems in a cross-cultural perspective. Humboldt-Univertt, Berlin, 8-10 December 2006. Tao, H. R. Xiao (2006) A corpus-based sociolinguistic study of amplifiers in British English. Paper presented at the conference of the American Association of Applied Corpus Linguistics (AAACL). 20-22 October 2006, Flagstaff, Arizona. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2005) Passive constructions in English and Chinese: a corpus-based contrastive study. Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2005. Birmingham University, 14-17 July, 2005. Xiao, R., T. McEnery, P. Baker A. Hardie. (2004) Developing Asian language corpora: standards and practice. Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Asian Language Resources, pp. 1-8. Sanya, Hainan Island, March 25, 2004. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2004a). The Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese: A corpus for monolingual and contrastive language study. In M. Lino, M. Xavier, F. Ferreire, R. Costa, R. Silva (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) 2004, pp. 1175-1178. Lisbon, May 24-30, 2004. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2004b). 'The use of corpora in the study of collocation and semantic prosody, exemplified through corpus data from English and Mandarin Chinese'. Paper presented at BAAL Annual Conference 2004. King's College London, 9-11 September, 2004. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2003a) Fuck revisited. In Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2003, pp. 505-12. Lancaster University, 28-31 March, 2003. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2003b) Aspects of translation in Chinese and English: A corpus based approach to the translation of aspect. In Tagungsband der Internationalen Konferenz 'Korpuslinguistik deutsch: synchron - diachron - kontrastiv'. Universitt Würzburg, 20 – 23 March, 2003. Xiao, R. T. McEnery (2002a) A two-level approach to situation aspect. Paper presented at the 5th Chronos Colloquium on Tense, Aspect and Modality. Groningen, 18-21 June, 2002. Xiao, R. T. McEnery (2002b). A corpus-based approach to tense and aspect in English-Chinese translation. Plenary talk given at the International Symposium on Contrastive and Translation Studies between Chinese and English. Shanghai, 8-11 August, 2002. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2002a) Help or help to: What do corpora have to say? Paper presented at the Fourth North American Symposium on Corpus Linguistics. Indianapolis, Indiana, 1-3 November, 2002. McEnery, T. R. Xiao (2002b). Domains, text types, aspect marking and English-Chinese translation. Paper presented at ICAME 2002 the Theory and Use of English Language Corpora. Gtenborg, May 22-26, 2002. Xiao, R. (2001) A corpus-based study of interaction between Chinese perfective -le and situation types. In Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001. 625-635. Lancaster University, 30 March - 2 April, 2001. Electronic corpora McEnery, T. R. Xiao. (2008) CALLHOME Mandarin Chinese Transcript XML version . The Linguistic Data Consortium. Xiao, R., M. Yue L. He. (2008) The ZCTC Corpus of Translational Chinese . Hangzhou: Zhejiang University. Xiao, R. H. Tao. (2006) The Lancaster Los Angeles Spoken Chinese Corpus . UCREL, Lancaster. Tao, H. R. Xiao. (2007) The UCLA Written Chinese Corpus . UCREL, Lancaster. Xiao, R. (2005) The PDC-2000 Chinese News Text Corpus . UCREL, Lancaster. Xiao, R. (2004) Babel English-Chinese Parallel Corpus . UCREL, Lancaster. McEnery, T. R. Xiao. (2003) Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese . The European Language Resources Association (Catalogue No. W0039) and the Oxford Text Archive (Catalogue No. 2474).
Richard Muther is the Founder and Chairman of Richard Muther Associates. He is widely respected as an industrial engineer and management consultant, and has been called the father of systematic facilities planning. Over the years, Mr. Muther has participated in more than 1000 consulting and professional planning projects. The many clients he has personally assisted include: Deere Co., Olin Corp., Cummins Engine, Kenworth Truck, Volvo, Phillips, Japan Management Association, and the Ministry of Machinery of the People Republic of China. Mr. Muther formerly held management positions with Remington Arms, Chrysler, Peerless Machinery, and Vendo. He also served on the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and taught at the U.S. Navy School of Management and Industrial Engineering. An award-winning engineer, Mr. Muther is best known for developing the following widely-used techniques : 1.Systematic Layout Planning (SLP), 2.Systematic Planning of Industrial Facilities, 3.the Mag-Count measure of material and package transportability , 4.High Performance Planning. A prolific writer, Richard Muther has authored the following books : Production Line Technique, Practical Plant Layout, Systematic Layout Planning (SLP), Systematic Handling Analysis (SHA), Office Layout Planning, Systematic Planning of Industrial Facilities, Creating Personal Success, High Performance Planning, and others. He has also contributed to four popular handbooks, two encyclopedias, and is the author of more than 100 technical papers and magazine articles. His works have been translated into several languages and are used throughout the industrial world. Recipient of the prestigious Gilbreth Medal for outstanding contributions to industrial engineering , Richard Muther has also received Reed-Apple Award, the Materials Handling Award of the Society for the Advancement of Management, the Honor Award of the International Material Management Society, and an Engineering Citation from the Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Mr. Muther is a founder and past President of the Association of Professional Material Handling Consultants, and a Fellow in the Society for the Advancement of Management. Mr. Muther memberships include: the Institute of Management Consultants, the Materials Handling Management Society, and the World Futures Society. He founded and chairs the Institute of High Performance Planners, an international association of professionals devoted to advancing the science of planning. Richard Muther holds B.S. and M.S. degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology . He received an honorary doctorate ScD(hc) from Lund University in Sweden and is a registered Professional Engineer. Family of Systematic Planning Methods Richard Muther Associates机构提供 1. Systematic Layout Planning (SLP) SLP is the world's most practical and organized method for rearranging existing or laying out new facilities. It is adaptable to factories, warehouses, offices, labs, hospitals... Published in book form in nine languages, SLP is also available on video. SLP is the procedural basis for most commercial software used by space and layout planners. For an overview and example of manufacturing plant layout click here. 2. Systematic Planning of Manufacturing Cells (SPMC) SPMC is the world's most practical and comprehensive method for planning manufacturing cells and production lines. SPMC generates physical plans and operating procedures for single-piece or small-batch flow. SPMC also addresses motivation, training, job design, and performance measurement. Published in book form, SPMC is also available on video. 3.Systematic Handling Analysis (SHA) SHA is a companion to the well-recognized SLP and the basis for commercial software used in factory and warehouse flow studies. SHA guides equipment selection and move planning, and ensures a cost-effective material handling system. SHA includes Mag Count (and Macromag) -- a way to measure the "transportability" of materials, before knowing the method of moving them. SHA is published in booklet form. 4.Systematic Container Planning (SCP) A companion method to SHA, SCP guides the specification and selection of industrial containers. When the logistics plan calls for returnable containers, SCP assures an effective total system. SCP applies to all levels of container movement -- within workcells, between cells and supermarkets within a plant, or between the plant and its external suppliers and customers. 5.LEANplan LEANplan uses value stream mapping to plan for lean operations -- plant wide or across the supply chain. When used with the other Muther methods, LEANplan is the Master method.?SLP, SPMC, SHA, and others follow as needed to enable and support the lean operating plan. 相关查阅： http://www.hpcinc.com/rma/rma.asp?TopicID=1Name=AboutRMA
Talk at Bellcore, 7 March 1986 (One of the most important talks on research I have ever read. Thanks, Cal!) The title of my talk is, ``You and Your Research.'' It is not about managing research, it is about how you individually do your research. I could give a talk on the other subject-- but it's not, it's about you. I'm not talking about ordinary run-of-the-mill research; I'm talking about great research. And for the sake of describing great research I'll occasionally say Nobel-Prize type of work. It doesn't have to gain the Nobel Prize, but I mean those kinds of things which we perceive are significant things. Relativity, if you want, Shannon's information theory, any number of outstanding theories-- that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Now, how did I come to do this study? At Los Alamos I was brought in to run the computing machines which other people had got going, so those scientists and physicists could get back to business. I saw I was a stooge. I saw that although physically I was the same, they were different. And to put the thing bluntly, I was envious. I wanted to know why they were so different from me. I saw Feynman up close. I saw Fermi and Teller. I saw Oppenheimer. I saw Hans Bethe: he was my boss. I saw quite a few very capable people. I became very interested in the difference between those who do and those who might have done. When I came to Bell Labs, I came into a very productive department. Bode was the department head at the time; Shannon was there, and there were other people. I continued examining the questions, ``Why?'' and ``What is the difference?'' I continued subsequently by reading biographies, autobiographies, asking people questions such as: ``How did you come to do this?'' I tried to find out what are the differences. And that's what this talk is about. Now, why is this talk important? I think it is important because, as far as I know, each of you has one life to live. Even if you believe in reincarnation it doesn't do you any good from one life to the next! Why shouldn't you do significant things in this one life, however you define significant? I'm not going to define it - you know what I mean. I will talk mainly about science because that is what I have studied. But so far as I know, and I've been told by others, much of what I say applies to many fields. Outstanding work is characterized very much the same way in most fields, but I will confine myself to science. In order to get at you individually, I must talk in the first person. I have to get you to drop modesty and say to yourself, ``Yes, I would like to do first-class work.'' Our society frowns on people who set out to do really good work. You're not supposed to; luck is supposed to descend on you and you do great things by chance. Well, that's a kind of dumb thing to say. I say, why shouldn't you set out to do something significant. You don't have to tell other people, but shouldn't you say to yourself, ``Yes, I would like to do something significant.'' In order to get to the second stage, I have to drop modesty and talk in the first person about what I've seen, what I've done, and what I've heard. I'm going to talk about people, some of whom you know, and I trust that when we leave, you won't quote me as saying some of the things I said. Let me start not logically, but psychologically. I find that the major objection is that people think great science is done by luck. It's all a matter of luck. Well, consider Einstein. Note how many different things he did that were good. Was it all luck? Wasn't it a little too repetitive? Consider Shannon. He didn't do just information theory. Several years before, he did some other good things and some which are still locked up in the security of cryptography. He did many good things. You see again and again, that it is more than one thing from a good person. Once in a while a person does only one thing in his whole life, and we'll talk about that later, but a lot of times there is repetition. I claim that luck will not cover everything. And I will cite Pasteur who said, ``Luck favors the prepared mind.'' And I think that says it the way I believe it. There is indeed an element of luck, and no, there isn't. The prepared mind sooner or later finds something important and does it. So yes, it is luck. The particular thing you do is luck, but that you do something is not. For example, when I came to Bell Labs, I shared an office for a while with Shannon. At the same time he was doing information theory, I was doing coding theory. It is suspicious that the two of us did it at the same place and at the same time - it was in the atmosphere. And you can say, ``Yes, it was luck.'' On the other hand you can say, ``But why of all the people in Bell Labs then were those the two who did it?'' Yes, it is partly luck, and partly it is the prepared mind; but `partly' is the other thing I'm going to talk about. So, although I'll come back several more times to luck, I want to dispose of this matter of luck as being the sole criterion whether you do great work or not. I claim you have some, but not total, control over it. And I will quote, finally, Newton on the matter. Newton said, ``If others would think as hard as I did, then they would get similar results.'' One of the characteristics you see, and many people have it including great scientists, is that usually when they were young they had independent thoughts and had the courage to pursue them. For example, Einstein, somewhere around 12 or 14, asked himself the question, ``What would a light wave look like if I went with the velocity of light to look at it?'' Now he knew that electromagnetic theory says you cannot have a stationary local maximum. But if he moved along with the velocity of light, he would see a local maximum. He could see a contradiction at the age of 12, 14, or somewhere around there, that everything was not right and that the velocity of light had something peculiar. Is it luck that he finally created special relativity? Early on, he had laid down some of the pieces by thinking of the fragments. Now that's the necessary but not sufficient condition. All of these items I will talk about are both luck and not luck. How about having lots of `brains?' It sounds good. Most of you in this room probably have more than enough brains to do first-class work. But great work is something else than mere brains. Brains are measured in various ways. In mathematics, theoretical physics, astrophysics, typically brains correlates to a great extent with the ability to manipulate symbols. And so the typical IQ test is apt to score them fairly high. On the other hand, in other fields it is something different. For example, Bill Pfann, the fellow who did zone melting, came into my office one day. He had this idea dimly in his mind about what he wanted and he had some equations. It was pretty clear to me that this man didn't know much mathematics and he wasn't really articulate. His problem seemed interesting so I took it home and did a little work. I finally showed him how to run computers so he could compute his own answers. I gave him the power to compute. He went ahead, with negligible recognition from his own department, but ultimately he has collected all the prizes in the field. Once he got well started, his shyness, his awkwardness, his inarticulateness, fell away and he became much more productive in many other ways. Certainly he became much more articulate. And I can cite another person in the same way. I trust he isn't in the audience, i.e. a fellow named Clogston. I met him when I was working on a problem with John Pierce's group and I didn't think he had much. I asked my friends who had been with him at school, ``Was he like that in graduate school?'' ``Yes,'' they replied. Well I would have fired the fellow, but J. R. Pierce was smart and kept him on. Clogston finally did the Clogston cable. After that there was a steady stream of good ideas. One success brought him confidence and courage. One of the characteristics of successful scientists is having courage. Once you get your courage up and believe that you can do important problems, then you can. If you think you can't, almost surely you are not going to. Courage is one of the things that Shannon had supremely. You have only to think of his major theorem. He wants to create a method of coding, but he doesn't know what to do so he makes a random code. Then he is stuck. And then he asks the impossible question, ``What would the average random code do?'' He then proves that the average code is arbitrarily good, and that therefore there must be at least one good code. Who but a man of infinite courage could have dared to think those thoughts? That is the characteristic of great scientists; they have courage. They will go forward under incredible circumstances; they think and continue to think. Age is another factor which the physicists particularly worry about. They always are saying that you have got to do it when you are young or you will never do it. Einstein did things very early, and all the quantum mechanic fellows were disgustingly young when they did their best work. Most mathematicians, theoretical physicists, and astrophysicists do what we consider their best work when they are young. It is not that they don't do good work in their old age but what we value most is often what they did early. On the other hand, in music, politics and literature, often what we consider their best work was done late. I don't know how whatever field you are in fits this scale, but age has some effect. But let me say why age seems to have the effect it does. In the first place if you do some good work you will find yourself on all kinds of committees and unable to do any more work. You may find yourself as I saw Brattain when he got a Nobel Prize. The day the prize was announced we all assembled in Arnold Auditorium; all three winners got up and made speeches. The third one, Brattain, practically with tears in his eyes, said, ``I know about this Nobel-Prize effect and I am not going to let it affect me; I am going to remain good old Walter Brattain.'' Well I said to myself, ``That is nice.'' But in a few weeks I saw it was affecting him. Now he could only work on great problems. When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems. This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn't the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards. This brings up the subject, out of order perhaps, of working conditions. What most people think are the best working conditions, are not. Very clearly they are not because people are often most productive when working conditions are bad. One of the better times of the Cambridge Physical Laboratories was when they had practically shacks - they did some of the best physics ever. I give you a story from my own private life. Early on it became evident to me that Bell Laboratories was not going to give me the conventional acre of programming people to program computing machines in absolute binary. It was clear they weren't going to. But that was the way everybody did it. I could go to the West Coast and get a job with the airplane companies without any trouble, but the exciting people were at Bell Labs and the fellows out there in the airplane companies were not. I thought for a long while about, ``Did I want to go or not?'' and I wondered how I could get the best of two possible worlds. I finally said to myself, ``Hamming, you think the machines can do practically everything. Why can't you make them write programs?'' What appeared at first to me as a defect forced me into automatic programming very early. What appears to be a fault, often, by a change of viewpoint, turns out to be one of the greatest assets you can have. But you are not likely to think that when you first look the thing and say, ``Gee, I'm never going to get enough programmers, so how can I ever do any great programming?'' And there are many other stories of the same kind; Grace Hopper has similar ones. I think that if you look carefully you will see that often the great scientists, by turning the problem around a bit, changed a defect to an asset. For example, many scientists when they found they couldn't do a problem finally began to study why not. They then turned it around the other way and said, ``But of course, this is what it is'' and got an important result. So ideal working conditions are very strange. The ones you want aren't always the best ones for you. Now for the matter of drive. You observe that most great scientists have tremendous drive. I worked for ten years with John Tukey at Bell Labs. He had tremendous drive. One day about three or four years after I joined, I discovered that John Tukey was slightly younger than I was. John was a genius and I clearly was not. Well I went storming into Bode's office and said, ``How can anybody my age know as much as John Tukey does?'' He leaned back in his chair, put his hands behind his head, grinned slightly, and said, ``You would be surprised Hamming, how much you would know if you worked as hard as he did that many years.'' I simply slunk out of the office! What Bode was saying was this: ``Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest.'' Given two people of approximately the same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity - it is very much like compound interest. I don't want to give you a rate, but it is a very high rate. Given two people with exactly the same ability, the one person who manages day in and day out to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more productive over a lifetime. I took Bode's remark to heart; I spent a good deal more of my time for some years trying to work a bit harder and I found, in fact, I could get more work done. I don't like to say it in front of my wife, but I did sort of neglect her sometimes; I needed to study. You have to neglect things if you intend to get what you want done. There's no question about this. On this matter of drive Edison says, ``Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.'' He may have been exaggerating, but the idea is that solid work, steadily applied, gets you surprisingly far. The steady application of effort with a little bit more work, intelligently applied is what does it. That's the trouble; drive, misapplied, doesn't get you anywhere. I've often wondered why so many of my good friends at Bell Labs who worked as hard or harder than I did, didn't have so much to show for it. The misapplication of effort is a very serious matter. Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly. There's another trait on the side which I want to talk about; that trait is ambiguity. It took me a while to discover its importance. Most people like to believe something is or is not true. Great scientists tolerate ambiguity very well. They believe the theory enough to go ahead; they doubt it enough to notice the errors and faults so they can step forward and create the new replacement theory. If you believe too much you'll never notice the flaws; if you doubt too much you won't get started. It requires a lovely balance. But most great scientists are well aware of why their theories are true and they are also well aware of some slight misfits which don't quite fit and they don't forget it. Darwin writes in his autobiography that he found it necessary to write down every piece of evidence which appeared to contradict his beliefs because otherwise they would disappear from his mind. When you find apparent flaws you've got to be sensitive and keep track of those things, and keep an eye out for how they can be explained or how the theory can be changed to fit them. Those are often the great contributions. Great contributions are rarely done by adding another decimal place. It comes down to an emotional commitment. Most great scientists are completely committed to their problem. Those who don't become committed seldom produce outstanding, first-class work. Now again, emotional commitment is not enough. It is a necessary condition apparently. And I think I can tell you the reason why. Everybody who has studied creativity is driven finally to saying, ``creativity comes out of your subconscious.'' Somehow, suddenly, there it is. It just appears. Well, we know very little about the subconscious; but one thing you are pretty well aware of is that your dreams also come out of your subconscious. And you're aware your dreams are, to a fair extent, a reworking of the experiences of the day. If you are deeply immersed and committed to a topic, day after day after day, your subconscious has nothing to do but work on your problem. And so you wake up one morning, or on some afternoon, and there's the answer. For those who don't get committed to their current problem, the subconscious goofs off on other things and doesn't produce the big result. So the way to manage yourself is that when you have a real important problem you don't let anything else get the center of your attention - you keep your thoughts on the problem. Keep your subconscious starved so it has to work on your problem, so you can sleep peacefully and get the answer in the morning, free. Now Alan Chynoweth mentioned that I used to eat at the physics table. I had been eating with the mathematicians and I found out that I already knew a fair amount of mathematics; in fact, I wasn't learning much. The physics table was, as he said, an exciting place, but I think he exaggerated on how much I contributed. It was very interesting to listen to Shockley, Brattain, Bardeen, J. B. Johnson, Ken McKay and other people, and I was learning a lot. But unfortunately a Nobel Prize came, and a promotion came, and what was left was the dregs. Nobody wanted what was left. Well, there was no use eating with them! Over on the other side of the dining hall was a chemistry table. I had worked with one of the fellows, Dave McCall; furthermore he was courting our secretary at the time. I went over and said, ``Do you mind if I join you?'' They can't say no, so I started eating with them for a while. And I started asking, ``What are the important problems of your field?'' And after a week or so, ``What important problems are you working on?'' And after some more time I came in one day and said, ``If what you are doing is not important, and if you don't think it is going to lead to something important, why are you at Bell Labs working on it?'' I wasn't welcomed after that; I had to find somebody else to eat with! That was in the spring. In the fall, Dave McCall stopped me in the hall and said, ``Hamming, that remark of yours got underneath my skin. I thought about it all summer, i.e. what were the important problems in my field. I haven't changed my research,'' he says, ``but I think it was well worthwhile.'' And I said, ``Thank you Dave,'' and went on. I noticed a couple of months later he was made the head of the department. I noticed the other day he was a Member of the National Academy of Engineering. I noticed he has succeeded. I have never heard the names of any of the other fellows at that table mentioned in science and scientific circles. They were unable to ask themselves, ``What are the important problems in my field?'' If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work. It's perfectly obvious. Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem' must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. We didn't work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity. They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It's not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack. That is what makes a problem important. When I say that most scientists don't work on important problems, I mean it in that sense. The average scientist, so far as I can make out, spends almost all his time working on problems which he believes will not be important and he also doesn't believe that they will lead to important problems. I spoke earlier about planting acorns so that oaks will grow. You can't always know exactly where to be, but you can keep active in places where something might happen. And even if you believe that great science is a matter of luck, you can stand on a mountain top where lightning strikes; you don't have to hide in the valley where you're safe. But the average scientist does routine safe work almost all the time and so he (or she) doesn't produce much. It's that simple. If you want to do great work, you clearly must work on important problems, and you should have an idea. Along those lines at some urging from John Tukey and others, I finally adopted what I called ``Great Thoughts Time.'' When I went to lunch Friday noon, I would only discuss great thoughts after that. By great thoughts I mean ones like: ``What will be the role of computers in all of ATT?'', ``How will computers change science?'' For example, I came up with the observation at that time that nine out of ten experiments were done in the lab and one in ten on the computer. I made a remark to the vice presidents one time, that it would be reversed, i.e. nine out of ten experiments would be done on the computer and one in ten in the lab. They knew I was a crazy mathematician and had no sense of reality. I knew they were wrong and they've been proved wrong while I have been proved right. They built laboratories when they didn't need them. I saw that computers were transforming science because I spent a lot of time asking ``What will be the impact of computers on science and how can I change it?'' I asked myself, ``How is it going to change Bell Labs?'' I remarked one time, in the same address, that more than one-half of the people at Bell Labs will be interacting closely with computing machines before I leave. Well, you all have terminals now. I thought hard about where was my field going, where were the opportunities, and what were the important things to do. Let me go there so there is a chance I can do important things. Most great scientists know many important problems. They have something between 10 and 20 important problems for which they are looking for an attack. And when they see a new idea come up, one hears them say ``Well that bears on this problem.'' They drop all the other things and get after it. Now I can tell you a horror story that was told to me but I can't vouch for the truth of it. I was sitting in an airport talking to a friend of mine from Los Alamos about how it was lucky that the fission experiment occurred over in Europe when it did because that got us working on the atomic bomb here in the US. He said ``No; at Berkeley we had gathered a bunch of data; we didn't get around to reducing it because we were building some more equipment, but if we had reduced that data we would have found fission.'' They had it in their hands and they didn't pursue it. They came in second! The great scientists, when an opportunity opens up, get after it and they pursue it. They drop all other things. They get rid of other things and they get after an idea because they had already thought the thing through. Their minds are prepared; they see the opportunity and they go after it. Now of course lots of times it doesn't work out, but you don't have to hit many of them to do some great science. It's kind of easy. One of the chief tricks is to live a long time! Another trait, it took me a while to notice. I noticed the following facts about people who work with the door open or the door closed. I notice that if you have the door to your office closed, you get more work done today and tomorrow, and you are more productive than most. But 10 years later somehow you don't know quite know what problems are worth working on; all the hard work you do is sort of tangential in importance. He who works with the door open gets all kinds of interruptions, but he also occasionally gets clues as to what the world is and what might be important. Now I cannot prove the cause and effect sequence because you might say, ``The closed door is symbolic of a closed mind.'' I don't know. But I can say there is a pretty good correlation between those who work with the doors open and those who ultimately do important things, although people who work with doors closed often work harder. Somehow they seem to work on slightly the wrong thing - not much, but enough that they miss fame. I want to talk on another topic. It is based on the song which I think many of you know, ``It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it.'' I'll start with an example of my own. I was conned into doing on a digital computer, in the absolute binary days, a problem which the best analog computers couldn't do. And I was getting an answer. When I thought carefully and said to myself, ``You know, Hamming, you're going to have to file a report on this military job; after you spend a lot of money you're going to have to account for it and every analog installation is going to want the report to see if they can't find flaws in it.'' I was doing the required integration by a rather crummy method, to say the least, but I was getting the answer. And I realized that in truth the problem was not just to get the answer; it was to demonstrate for the first time, and beyond question, that I could beat the analog computer on its own ground with a digital machine. I reworked the method of solution, created a theory which was nice and elegant, and changed the way we computed the answer; the results were no different. The published report had an elegant method which was later known for years as ``Hamming's Method of Integrating Differential Equations.'' It is somewhat obsolete now, but for a while it was a very good method. By changing the problem slightly, I did important work rather than trivial work. In the same way, when using the machine up in the attic in the early days, I was solving one problem after another after another; a fair number were successful and there were a few failures. I went home one Friday after finishing a problem, and curiously enough I wasn't happy; I was depressed. I could see life being a long sequence of one problem after another after another. After quite a while of thinking I decided, ``No, I should be in the mass production of a variable product. I should be concerned with all of next year's problems, not just the one in front of my face.'' By changing the question I still got the same kind of results or better, but I changed things and did important work. I attacked the major problem - How do I conquer machines and do all of next year's problems when I don't know what they are going to be? How do I prepare for it? How do I do this one so I'll be on top of it? How do I obey Newton's rule? He said, ``If I have seen further than others, it is because I've stood on the shoulders of giants.'' These days we stand on each other's feet! You should do your job in such a fashion that others can build on top of it, so they will indeed say, ``Yes, I've stood on so and so's shoulders and I saw further.'' The essence of science is cumulative. By changing a problem slightly you can often do great work rather than merely good work. Instead of attacking isolated problems, I made the resolution that I would never again solve an isolated problem except as characteristic of a class. Now if you are much of a mathematician you know that the effort to generalize often means that the solution is simple. Often by stopping and saying, ``This is the problem he wants but this is characteristic of so and so. Yes, I can attack the whole class with a far superior method than the particular one because I was earlier embedded in needless detail.'' The business of abstraction frequently makes things simple. Furthermore, I filed away the methods and prepared for the future problems. To end this part, I'll remind you, ``It is a poor workman who blames his tools - the good man gets on with the job, given what he's got, and gets the best answer he can.'' And I suggest that by altering the problem, by looking at the thing differently, you can make a great deal of difference in your final productivity because you can either do it in such a fashion that people can indeed build on what you've done, or you can do it in such a fashion that the next person has to essentially duplicate again what you've done. It isn't just a matter of the job, it's the way you write the report, the way you write the paper, the whole attitude. It's just as easy to do a broad, general job as one very special case. And it's much more satisfying and rewarding! I have now come down to a topic which is very distasteful; it is not sufficient to do a job, you have to sell it. `Selling' to a scientist is an awkward thing to do. It's very ugly; you shouldn't have to do it. The world is supposed to be waiting, and when you do something great, they should rush out and welcome it. But the fact is everyone is busy with their own work. You must present it so well that they will set aside what they are doing, look at what you've done, read it, and come back and say, ``Yes, that was good.'' I suggest that when you open a journal, as you turn the pages, you ask why you read some articles and not others. You had better write your report so when it is published in the Physical Review, or wherever else you want it, as the readers are turning the pages they won't just turn your pages but they will stop and read yours. If they don't stop and read it, you won't get credit. There are three things you have to do in selling. You have to learn to write clearly and well so that people will read it, you must learn to give reasonably formal talks, and you also must learn to give informal talks. We had a lot of so-called `back room scientists.' In a conference, they would keep quiet. Three weeks later after a decision was made they filed a report saying why you should do so and so. Well, it was too late. They would not stand up right in the middle of a hot conference, in the middle of activity, and say, ``We should do this for these reasons.'' You need to master that form of communication as well as prepared speeches. When I first started, I got practically physically ill while giving a speech, and I was very, very nervous. I realized I either had to learn to give speeches smoothly or I would essentially partially cripple my whole career. The first time IBM asked me to give a speech in New York one evening, I decided I was going to give a really good speech, a speech that was wanted, not a technical one but a broad one, and at the end if they liked it, I'd quietly say, ``Any time you want one I'll come in and give you one.'' As a result, I got a great deal of practice giving speeches to a limited audience and I got over being afraid. Furthermore, I could also then study what methods were effective and what were ineffective. While going to meetings I had already been studying why some papers are remembered and most are not. The technical person wants to give a highly limited technical talk. Most of the time the audience wants a broad general talk and wants much more survey and background than the speaker is willing to give. As a result, many talks are ineffective. The speaker names a topic and suddenly plunges into the details he's solved. Few people in the audience may follow. You should paint a general picture to say why it's important, and then slowly give a sketch of what was done. Then a larger number of people will say, ``Yes, Joe has done that,'' or ``Mary has done that; I really see where it is; yes, Mary really gave a good talk; I understand what Mary has done.'' The tendency is to give a highly restricted, safe talk; this is usually ineffective. Furthermore, many talks are filled with far too much information. So I say this idea of selling is obvious. Let me summarize. You've got to work on important problems. I deny that it is all luck, but I admit there is a fair element of luck. I subscribe to Pasteur's ``Luck favors the prepared mind.'' I favor heavily what I did. Friday afternoons for years - great thoughts only - means that I committed 10% of my time trying to understand the bigger problems in the field, i.e. what was and what was not important. I found in the early days I had believed `this' and yet had spent all week marching in `that' direction. It was kind of foolish. If I really believe the action is over there, why do I march in this direction? I either had to change my goal or change what I did. So I changed something I did and I marched in the direction I thought was important. It's that easy. Now you might tell me you haven't got control over what you have to work on. Well, when you first begin, you may not. But once you're moderately successful, there are more people asking for results than you can deliver and you have some power of choice, but not completely. I'll tell you a story about that, and it bears on the subject of educating your boss. I had a boss named Schelkunoff; he was, and still is, a very good friend of mine. Some military person came to me and demanded some answers by Friday. Well, I had already dedicated my computing resources to reducing data on the fly for a group of scientists; I was knee deep in short, small, important problems. This military person wanted me to solve his problem by the end of the day on Friday. I said, ``No, I'll give it to you Monday. I can work on it over the weekend. I'm not going to do it now.'' He goes down to my boss, Schelkunoff, and Schelkunoff says, ``You must run this for him; he's got to have it by Friday.'' I tell him, ``Why do I?''; he says, ``You have to.'' I said, ``Fine, Sergei, but you're sitting in your office Friday afternoon catching the late bus home to watch as this fellow walks out that door.'' I gave the military person the answers late Friday afternoon. I then went to Schelkunoff's office and sat down; as the man goes out I say, ``You see Schelkunoff, this fellow has nothing under his arm; but I gave him the answers.'' On Monday morning Schelkunoff called him up and said, ``Did you come in to work over the weekend?'' I could hear, as it were, a pause as the fellow ran through his mind of what was going to happen; but he knew he would have had to sign in, and he'd better not say he had when he hadn't, so he said he hadn't. Ever after that Schelkunoff said, ``You set your deadlines; you can change them.'' One lesson was sufficient to educate my boss as to why I didn't want to do big jobs that displaced exploratory research and why I was justified in not doing crash jobs which absorb all the research computing facilities. I wanted instead to use the facilities to compute a large number of small problems. Again, in the early days, I was limited in computing capacity and it was clear, in my area, that a ``mathematician had no use for machines.'' But I needed more machine capacity. Every time I had to tell some scientist in some other area, ``No I can't; I haven't the machine capacity,'' he complained. I said ``Go tell your Vice President that Hamming needs more computing capacity.'' After a while I could see what was happening up there at the top; many people said to my Vice President, ``Your man needs more computing capacity.'' I got it! I also did a second thing. When I loaned what little programming power we had to help in the early days of computing, I said, ``We are not getting the recognition for our programmers that they deserve. When you publish a paper you will thank that programmer or you aren't getting any more help from me. That programmer is going to be thanked by name; she's worked hard.'' I waited a couple of years. I then went through a year of BSTJ articles and counted what fraction thanked some programmer. I took it into the boss and said, ``That's the central role computing is playing in Bell Labs; if the BSTJ is important, that's how important computing is.'' He had to give in. You can educate your bosses. It's a hard job. In this talk I'm only viewing from the bottom up; I'm not viewing from the top down. But I am telling you how you can get what you want in spite of top management. You have to sell your ideas there also. Well I now come down to the topic, ``Is the effort to be a great scientist worth it?'' To answer this, you must ask people. When you get beyond their modesty, most people will say, ``Yes, doing really first-class work, and knowing it, is as good as wine, women and song put together,'' or if it's a woman she says, ``It is as good as wine, men and song put together.'' And if you look at the bosses, they tend to come back or ask for reports, trying to participate in those moments of discovery. They're always in the way. So evidently those who have done it, want to do it again. But it is a limited survey. I have never dared to go out and ask those who didn't do great work how they felt about the matter. It's a biased sample, but I still think it is worth the struggle. I think it is very definitely worth the struggle to try and do first-class work because the truth is, the value is in the struggle more than it is in the result. The struggle to make something of yourself seems to be worthwhile in itself. The success and fame are sort of dividends, in my opinion. I've told you how to do it. It is so easy, so why do so many people, with all their talents, fail? For example, my opinion, to this day, is that there are in the mathematics department at Bell Labs quite a few people far more able and far better endowed than I, but they didn't produce as much. Some of them did produce more than I did; Shannon produced more than I did, and some others produced a lot, but I was highly productive against a lot of other fellows who were better equipped. Why is it so? What happened to them? Why do so many of the people who have great promise, fail? Well, one of the reasons is drive and commitment. The people who do great work with less ability but who are committed to it, get more done that those who have great skill and dabble in it, who work during the day and go home and do other things and come back and work the next day. They don't have the deep commitment that is apparently necessary for really first-class work. They turn out lots of good work, but we were talking, remember, about first-class work. There is a difference. Good people, very talented people, almost always turn out good work. We're talking about the outstanding work, the type of work that gets the Nobel Prize and gets recognition. The second thing is, I think, the problem of personality defects. Now I'll cite a fellow whom I met out in Irvine. He had been the head of a computing center and he was temporarily on assignment as a special assistant to the president of the university. It was obvious he had a job with a great future. He took me into his office one time and showed me his method of getting letters done and how he took care of his correspondence. He pointed out how inefficient the secretary was. He kept all his letters stacked around there; he knew where everything was. And he would, on his word processor, get the letter out. He was bragging how marvelous it was and how he could get so much more work done without the secretary's interference. Well, behind his back, I talked to the secretary. The secretary said, ``Of course I can't help him; I don't get his mail. He won't give me the stuff to log in; I don't know where he puts it on the floor. Of course I can't help him.'' So I went to him and said, ``Look, if you adopt the present method and do what you can do single-handedly, you can go just that far and no farther than you can do single-handedly. If you will learn to work with the system, you can go as far as the system will support you.'' And, he never went any further. He had his personality defect of wanting total control and was not willing to recognize that you need the support of the system. You find this happening again and again; good scientists will fight the system rather than learn to work with the system and take advantage of all the system has to offer. It has a lot, if you learn how to use it. It takes patience, but you can learn how to use the system pretty well, and you can learn how to get around it. After all, if you want a decision `No', you just go to your boss and get a `No' easy. If you want to do something, don't ask, do it. Present him with an accomplished fact. Don't give him a chance to tell you `No'. But if you want a `No', it's easy to get a `No'. Another personality defect is ego assertion and I'll speak in this case of my own experience. I came from Los Alamos and in the early days I was using a machine in New York at 590 Madison Avenue where we merely rented time. I was still dressing in western clothes, big slash pockets, a bolo and all those things. I vaguely noticed that I was not getting as good service as other people. So I set out to measure. You came in and you waited for your turn; I felt I was not getting a fair deal. I said to myself, ``Why? No Vice President at IBM said, `Give Hamming a bad time'. It is the secretaries at the bottom who are doing this. When a slot appears, they'll rush to find someone to slip in, but they go out and find somebody else. Now, why? I haven't mistreated them.'' Answer, I wasn't dressing the way they felt somebody in that situation should. It came down to just that - I wasn't dressing properly. I had to make the decision - was I going to assert my ego and dress the way I wanted to and have it steadily drain my effort from my professional life, or was I going to appear to conform better? I decided I would make an effort to appear to conform properly. The moment I did, I got much better service. And now, as an old colorful character, I get better service than other people. You should dress according to the expectations of the audience spoken to. If I am going to give an address at the MIT computer center, I dress with a bolo and an old corduroy jacket or something else. I know enough not to let my clothes, my appearance, my manners get in the way of what I care about. An enormous number of scientists feel they must assert their ego and do their thing their way. They have got to be able to do this, that, or the other thing, and they pay a steady price. John Tukey almost always dressed very casually. He would go into an important office and it would take a long time before the other fellow realized that this is a first-class man and he had better listen. For a long time John has had to overcome this kind of hostility. It's wasted effort! I didn't say you should conform; I said ``The appearance of conforming gets you a long way.'' If you chose to assert your ego in any number of ways, ``I am going to do it my way,'' you pay a small steady price throughout the whole of your professional career. And this, over a whole lifetime, adds up to an enormous amount of needless trouble. By taking the trouble to tell jokes to the secretaries and being a little friendly, I got superb secretarial help. For instance, one time for some idiot reason all the reproducing services at Murray Hill were tied up. Don't ask me how, but they were. I wanted something done. My secretary called up somebody at Holmdel, hopped the company car, made the hour-long trip down and got it reproduced, and then came back. It was a payoff for the times I had made an effort to cheer her up, tell her jokes and be friendly; it was that little extra work that later paid off for me. By realizing you have to use the system and studying how to get the system to do your work, you learn how to adapt the system to your desires. Or you can fight it steadily, as a small undeclared war, for the whole of your life. And I think John Tukey paid a terrible price needlessly. He was a genius anyhow, but I think it would have been far better, and far simpler, had he been willing to conform a little bit instead of ego asserting. He is going to dress the way he wants all of the time. It applies not only to dress but to a thousand other things; people will continue to fight the system. Not that you shouldn't occasionally! When they moved the library from the middle of Murray Hill to the far end, a friend of mine put in a request for a bicycle. Well, the organization was not dumb. They waited awhile and sent back a map of the grounds saying, ``Will you please indicate on this map what paths you are going to take so we can get an insurance policy covering you.'' A few more weeks went by. They then asked, ``Where are you going to store the bicycle and how will it be locked so we can do so and so.'' He finally realized that of course he was going to be red-taped to death so he gave in. He rose to be the President of Bell Laboratories. Barney Oliver was a good man. He wrote a letter one time to the IEEE. At that time the official shelf space at Bell Labs was so much and the height of the IEEE Proceedings at that time was larger; and since you couldn't change the size of the official shelf space he wrote this letter to the IEEE Publication person saying, ``Since so many IEEE members were at Bell Labs and since the official space was so high the journal size should be changed.'' He sent it for his boss's signature. Back came a carbon with his signature, but he still doesn't know whether the original was sent or not. I am not saying you shouldn't make gestures of reform. I am saying that my study of able people is that they don't get themselves committed to that kind of warfare. They play it a little bit and drop it and get on with their work. Many a second-rate fellow gets caught up in some little twitting of the system, and carries it through to warfare. He expends his energy in a foolish project. Now you are going to tell me that somebody has to change the system. I agree; somebody's has to. Which do you want to be? The person who changes the system or the person who does first-class science? Which person is it that you want to be? Be clear, when you fight the system and struggle with it, what you are doing, how far to go out of amusement, and how much to waste your effort fighting the system. My advice is to let somebody else do it and you get on with becoming a first-class scientist. Very few of you have the ability to both reform the system and become a first-class scientist. On the other hand, we can't always give in. There are times when a certain amount of rebellion is sensible. I have observed almost all scientists enjoy a certain amount of twitting the system for the sheer love of it. What it comes down to basically is that you cannot be original in one area without having originality in others. Originality is being different. You can't be an original scientist without having some other original characteristics. But many a scientist has let his quirks in other places make him pay a far higher price than is necessary for the ego satisfaction he or she gets. I'm not against all ego assertion; I'm against some. Another fault is anger. Often a scientist becomes angry, and this is no way to handle things. Amusement, yes, anger, no. Anger is misdirected. You should follow and cooperate rather than struggle against the system all the time. Another thing you should look for is the positive side of things instead of the negative. I have already given you several examples, and there are many, many more; how, given the situation, by changing the way I looked at it, I converted what was apparently a defect to an asset. I'll give you another example. I am an egotistical person; there is no doubt about it. I knew that most people who took a sabbatical to write a book, didn't finish it on time. So before I left, I told all my friends that when I come back, that book was going to be done! Yes, I would have it done - I'd have been ashamed to come back without it! I used my ego to make myself behave the way I wanted to. I bragged about something so I'd have to perform. I found out many times, like a cornered rat in a real trap, I was surprisingly capable. I have found that it paid to say, ``Oh yes, I'll get the answer for you Tuesday,'' not having any idea how to do it. By Sunday night I was really hard thinking on how I was going to deliver by Tuesday. I often put my pride on the line and sometimes I failed, but as I said, like a cornered rat I'm surprised how often I did a good job. I think you need to learn to use yourself. I think you need to know how to convert a situation from one view to another which would increase the chance of success. Now self-delusion in humans is very, very common. There are enumerable ways of you changing a thing and kidding yourself and making it look some other way. When you ask, ``Why didn't you do such and such,'' the person has a thousand alibis. If you look at the history of science, usually these days there are 10 people right there ready, and we pay off for the person who is there first. The other nine fellows say, ``Well, I had the idea but I didn't do it and so on and so on.'' There are so many alibis. Why weren't you first? Why didn't you do it right? Don't try an alibi. Don't try and kid yourself. You can tell other people all the alibis you want. I don't mind. But to yourself try to be honest. If you really want to be a first-class scientist you need to know yourself, your weaknesses, your strengths, and your bad faults, like my egotism. How can you convert a fault to an asset? How can you convert a situation where you haven't got enough manpower to move into a direction when that's exactly what you need to do? I say again that I have seen, as I studied the history, the successful scientist changed the viewpoint and what was a defect became an asset. In summary, I claim that some of the reasons why so many people who have greatness within their grasp don't succeed are: they don't work on important problems, they don't become emotionally involved, they don't try and change what is difficult to some other situation which is easily done but is still important, and they keep giving themselves alibis why they don't. They keep saying that it is a matter of luck. I've told you how easy it is; furthermore I've told you how to reform. Therefore, go forth and become great scientists! Questions and Answers A. G. Chynoweth: Well that was 50 minutes of concentrated wisdom and observations accumulated over a fantastic career; I lost track of all the observations that were striking home. Some of them are very very timely. One was the plea for more computer capacity; I was hearing nothing but that this morning from several people, over and over again. So that was right on the mark today even though here we are 20 - 30 years after when you were making similar remarks, Dick. I can think of all sorts of lessons that all of us can draw from your talk. And for one, as I walk around the halls in the future I hope I won't see as many closed doors in Bellcore. That was one observation I thought was very intriguing. Thank you very, very much indeed Dick; that was a wonderful recollection. I'll now open it up for questions. I'm sure there are many people who would like to take up on some of the points that Dick was making. Hamming: First let me respond to Alan Chynoweth about computing. I had computing in research and for 10 years I kept telling my management, ``Get that !@#% machine out of research. We are being forced to run problems all the time. We can't do research because were too busy operating and running the computing machines.'' Finally the message got through. They were going to move computing out of research to someplace else. I was persona non grata to say the least and I was surprised that people didn't kick my shins because everybody was having their toy taken away from them. I went in to Ed David's office and said, ``Look Ed, you've got to give your researchers a machine. If you give them a great big machine, we'll be back in the same trouble we were before, so busy keeping it going we can't think. Give them the smallest machine you can because they are very able people. They will learn how to do things on a small machine instead of mass computing.'' As far as I'm concerned, that's how UNIX arose. We gave them a moderately small machine and they decided to make it do great things. They had to come up with a system to do it on. It is called UNIX! A. G. Chynoweth: I just have to pick up on that one. In our present environment, Dick, while we wrestle with some of the red tape attributed to, or required by, the regulators, there is one quote that one exasperated AVP came up with and I've used it over and over again. He growled that, ``UNIX was never a deliverable!'' Question: What about personal stress? Does that seem to make a difference? Hamming: Yes, it does. If you don't get emotionally involved, it doesn't. I had incipient ulcers most of the years that I was at Bell Labs. I have since gone off to the Naval Postgraduate School and laid back somewhat, and now my health is much better. But if you want to be a great scientist you're going to have to put up with stress. You can lead a nice life; you can be a nice guy or you can be a great scientist. But nice guys end last, is what Leo Durocher said. If you want to lead a nice happy life with a lot of recreation and everything else, you'll lead a nice life. Question: The remarks about having courage, no one could argue with; but those of us who have gray hairs or who are well established don't have to worry too much. But what I sense among the young people these days is a real concern over the risk taking in a highly competitive environment. Do you have any words of wisdom on this? Hamming: I'll quote Ed David more. Ed David was concerned about the general loss of nerve in our society. It does seem to me that we've gone through various periods. Coming out of the war, coming out of Los Alamos where we built the bomb, coming out of building the radars and so on, there came into the mathematics department, and the research area, a group of people with a lot of guts. They've just seen things done; they've just won a war which was fantastic. We had reasons for having courage and therefore we did a great deal. I can't arrange that situation to do it again. I cannot blame the present generation for not having it, but I agree with what you say; I just cannot attach blame to it. It doesn't seem to me they have the desire for greatness; they lack the courage to do it. But we had, because we were in a favorable circumstance to have it; we just came through a tremendously successful war. In the war we were looking very, very bad for a long while; it was a very desperate struggle as you well know. And our success, I think, gave us courage and self confidence; that's why you see, beginning in the late forties through the fifties, a tremendous productivity at the labs which was stimulated from the earlier times. Because many of us were earlier forced to learn other things - we were forced to learn the things we didn't want to learn, we were forced to have an open door - and then we could exploit those things we learned. It is true, and I can't do anything about it; I cannot blame the present generation either. It's just a fact. Question: Is there something management could or should do? Hamming: Management can do very little. If you want to talk about managing research, that's a totally different talk. I'd take another hour doing that. This talk is about how the individual gets very successful research done in spite of anything the management does or in spite of any other opposition. And how do you do it? Just as I observe people doing it. It's just that simple and that hard! Question: Is brainstorming a daily process? Hamming: Once that was a very popular thing, but it seems not to have paid off. For myself I find it desirable to talk to other people; but a session of brainstorming is seldom worthwhile. I do go in to strictly talk to somebody and say, ``Look, I think there has to be something here. Here's what I think I see ...'' and then begin talking back and forth. But you want to pick capable people. To use another analogy, you know the idea called the `critical mass.' If you have enough stuff you have critical mass. There is also the idea I used to call `sound absorbers'. When you get too many sound absorbers, you give out an idea and they merely say, ``Yes, yes, yes.'' What you want to do is get that critical mass in action; ``Yes, that reminds me of so and so,'' or, ``Have you thought about that or this?'' When you talk to other people, you want to get rid of those sound absorbers who are nice people but merely say, ``Oh yes,'' and to find those who will stimulate you right back. For example, you couldn't talk to John Pierce without being stimulated very quickly. There were a group of other people I used to talk with. For example there was Ed Gilbert; I used to go down to his office regularly and ask him questions and listen and come back stimulated. I picked my people carefully with whom I did or whom I didn't brainstorm because the sound absorbers are a curse. They are just nice guys; they fill the whole space and they contribute nothing except they absorb ideas and the new ideas just die away instead of echoing on. Yes, I find it necessary to talk to people. I think people with closed doors fail to do this so they fail to get their ideas sharpened, such as ``Did you ever notice something over here?'' I never knew anything about it - I can go over and look. Somebody points the way. On my visit here, I have already found several books that I must read when I get home. I talk to people and ask questions when I think they can answer me and give me clues that I do not know about. I go out and look! Question: What kind of tradeoffs did you make in allocating your time for reading and writing and actually doing research? Hamming: I believed, in my early days, that you should spend at least as much time in the polish and presentation as you did in the original research. Now at least 50% of the time must go for the presentation. It's a big, big number. Question: How much effort should go into library work? Hamming: It depends upon the field. I will say this about it. There was a fellow at Bell Labs, a very, very, smart guy. He was always in the library; he read everything. If you wanted references, you went to him and he gave you all kinds of references. But in the middle of forming these theories, I formed a proposition: there would be no effect named after him in the long run. He is now retired from Bell Labs and is an Adjunct Professor. He was very valuable; I'm not questioning that. He wrote some very good Physical Review articles; but there's no effect named after him because he read too much. If you read all the time what other people have done you will think the way they thought. If you want to think new thoughts that are different, then do what a lot of creative people do - get the problem reasonably clear and then refuse to look at any answers until you've thought the problem through carefully how you would do it, how you could slightly change the problem to be the correct one. So yes, you need to keep up. You need to keep up more to find out what the problems are than to read to find the solutions. The reading is necessary to know what is going on and what is possible. But reading to get the solutions does not seem to be the way to do great research. So I'll give you two answers. You read; but it is not the amount, it is the way you read that counts. Question: How do you get your name attached to things? Hamming: By doing great work. I'll tell you the hamming window one. I had given Tukey a hard time, quite a few times, and I got a phone call from him from Princeton to me at Murray Hill. I knew that he was writing up power spectra and he asked me if I would mind if he called a certain window a ``Hamming window.'' And I said to him, ``Come on, John; you know perfectly well I did only a small part of the work but you also did a lot.'' He said, ``Yes, Hamming, but you contributed a lot of small things; you're entitled to some credit.'' So he called it the hamming window. Now, let me go on. I had twitted John frequently about true greatness. I said true greatness is when your name is like ampere, watt, and fourier - when it's spelled with a lower case letter. That's how the hamming window came about. Question: Dick, would you care to comment on the relative effectiveness between giving talks, writing papers, and writing books? Hamming: In the short-haul, papers are very important if you want to stimulate someone tomorrow. If you want to get recognition long-haul, it seems to me writing books is more contribution because most of us need orientation. In this day of practically infinite knowledge, we need orientation to find our way. Let me tell you what infinite knowledge is. Since from the time of Newton to now, we have come close to doubling knowledge every 17 years, more or less. And we cope with that, essentially, by specialization. In the next 340 years at that rate, there will be 20 doublings, i.e. a million, and there will be a million fields of specialty for every one field now. It isn't going to happen. The present growth of knowledge will choke itself off until we get different tools. I believe that books which try to digest, coordinate, get rid of the duplication, get rid of the less fruitful methods and present the underlying ideas clearly of what we know now, will be the things the future generations will value. Public talks are necessary; private talks are necessary; written papers are necessary. But I am inclined to believe that, in the long-haul, books which leave out what's not essential are more important than books which tell you everything because you don't want to know everything. I don't want to know that much about penguins is the usual reply. You just want to know the essence. Question: You mentioned the problem of the Nobel Prize and the subsequent notoriety of what was done to some of the careers. Isn't that kind of a much more broad problem of fame? What can one do? Hamming: Some things you could do are the following. Somewhere around every seven years make a significant, if not complete, shift in your field. Thus, I shifted from numerical analysis, to hardware, to software, and so on, periodically, because you tend to use up your ideas. When you go to a new field, you have to start over as a baby. You are no longer the big mukity muk and you can start back there and you can start planting those acorns which will become the giant oaks. Shannon, I believe, ruined himself. In fact when he left Bell Labs, I said, ``That's the end of Shannon's scientific career.'' I received a lot of flak from my friends who said that Shannon was just as smart as ever. I said, ``Yes, he'll be just as smart, but that's the end of his scientific career,'' and I truly believe it was. You have to change. You get tired after a while; you use up your originality in one field. You need to get something nearby. I'm not saying that you shift from music to theoretical physics to English literature; I mean within your field you should shift areas so that you don't go stale. You couldn't get away with forcing a change every seven years, but if you could, I would require a condition for doing research, being that you will change your field of research every seven years with a reasonable definition of what it means, or at the end of 10 years, management has the right to compel you to change. I would insist on a change because I'm serious. What happens to the old fellows is that they get a technique going; they keep on using it. They were marching in that direction which was right then, but the world changes. There's the new direction; but the old fellows are still marching in their former direction. You need to get into a new field to get new viewpoints, and before you use up all the old ones. You can do something about this, but it takes effort and energy. It takes courage to say, ``Yes, I will give up my great reputation.'' For example, when error correcting codes were well launched, having these theories, I said, ``Hamming, you are going to quit reading papers in the field; you are going to ignore it completely; you are going to try and do something else other than coast on that.'' I deliberately refused to go on in that field. I wouldn't even read papers to try to force myself to have a chance to do something else. I managed myself, which is what I'm preaching in this whole talk. Knowing many of my own faults, I manage myself. I have a lot of faults, so I've got a lot of problems, i.e. a lot of possibilities of management. Question: Would you compare research and management? Hamming: If you want to be a great researcher, you won't make it being president of the company. If you want to be president of the company, that's another thing. I'm not against being president of the company. I just don't want to be. I think Ian Ross does a good job as President of Bell Labs. I'm not against it; but you have to be clear on what you want. Furthermore, when you're young, you may have picked wanting to be a great scientist, but as you live longer, you may change your mind. For instance, I went to my boss, Bode, one day and said, ``Why did you ever become department head? Why didn't you just be a good scientist?'' He said, ``Hamming, I had a vision of what mathematics should be in Bell Laboratories. And I saw if that vision was going to be realized, I had to make it happen; I had to be department head.'' When your vision of what you want to do is what you can do single-handedly, then you should pursue it. The day your vision, what you think needs to be done, is bigger than what you can do single-handedly, then you have to move toward management. And the bigger the vision is, the farther in management you have to go. If you have a vision of what the whole laboratory should be, or the whole Bell System, you have to get there to make it happen. You can't make it happen from the bottom very easily. It depends upon what goals and what desires you have. And as they change in life, you have to be prepared to change. I chose to avoid management because I preferred to do what I could do single-handedly. But that's the choice that I made, and it is biased. Each person is entitled to their choice. Keep an open mind. But when you do choose a path, for heaven's sake be aware of what you have done and the choice you have made. Don't try to do both sides. Question: How important is one's own expectation or how important is it to be in a group or surrounded by people who expect great work from you? Hamming: At Bell Labs everyone expected good work from me - it was a big help. Everybody expects you to do a good job, so you do, if you've got pride. I think it's very valuable to have first-class people around. I sought out the best people. The moment that physics table lost the best people, I left. The moment I saw that the same was true of the chemistry table, I left. I tried to go with people who had great ability so I could learn from them and who would expect great results out of me. By deliberately managing myself, I think I did much better than laissez faire. Question: You, at the outset of your talk, minimized or played down luck; but you seemed also to gloss over the circumstances that got you to Los Alamos, that got you to Chicago, that got you to Bell Laboratories. Hamming: There was some luck. On the other hand I don't know the alternate branches. Until you can say that the other branches would not have been equally or more successful, I can't say. Is it luck the particular thing you do? For example, when I met Feynman at Los Alamos, I knew he was going to get a Nobel Prize. I didn't know what for. But I knew darn well he was going to do great work. No matter what directions came up in the future, this man would do great work. And sure enough, he did do great work. It isn't that you only do a little great work at this circumstance and that was luck, there are many opportunities sooner or later. There are a whole pail full of opportunities, of which, if you're in this situation, you seize one and you're great over there instead of over here. There is an element of luck, yes and no. Luck favors a prepared mind; luck favors a prepared person. It is not guaranteed; I don't guarantee success as being absolutely certain. I'd say luck changes the odds, but there is some definite control on the part of the individual. Go forth, then, and do great work! csell_env = 'mud'; // Begin Y! Store Generated Code // Begin Y! Store Generated Code csell_page_data = {}; csell_page_rec_data = = 'hamming'; csell_token_map = 'prod'; csell_token_map = 't'; csell_token_map = '2022276099'; csell_token_map = '2'; csell_token_map = 'paulgraham'; csell_token_map = 'http://geo.yahoo.com'; csell_token_map = 'order.store.yahoo.net'; c = csell_page_data; var t = csell_token_map; c = t ; c = t ; c = t ; c = t ; c = t ; c = t ; c = t ; YStore.addItemUrl = 'http%s://'+t +'/'+t +'/ymix/MetaController.html?eventName.addEvent&cartDS.shoppingcart_ROW0_m_orderItemVector_ROW0_m_itemId=%s&cartDS.shoppingcart_ROW0_m_orderItemVector_ROW0_m_quantity=1&ysco_key_cs_item=1§ionId=ysco.cart&ysco_key_store_id='+t ; } // Begin Y! Store Generated Code function csell_REC_VIEW_TAG() { var env = (typeof csell_env == 'string')?csell_env:'prod'; var p = csell_page_data; var a = '/sid='+p +'/io='+p +'/ii='+p +'/bt='+p +'-view'+'/en='+env; var r=Math.random(); YStore.CrossSellBeacon.renderBeaconWithRecData(p +'/p/s='+p +'/'+p +'='+r+a); } // Begin Y! Store Generated Code var csell_token_map = {}; csell_token_map = 'p'; csell_token_map = 'http://paulgraham.csell.store.yahoo.net/cs/recommend?itemids=hamming&location=p'; csell_token_map = 'false'; csell_token_map = ' if(window.yzq_p==null)document.write(" "); if(window.yzq_p)yzq_p('P=Si9x2NG_QkcSt0OBzPD4ZQAJyngl7kzc7FAAA7fV&T=17qmv2s5b%2fX%3d1289546832%2fE%3d23732888%2fR%3dst%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d1.1%2fW%3dJ%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d2889221665%2fH%3dc2VydmVJZD0iU2k5eDJOR19Ra2NTdDBPQnpQRDRaUUFKeW5nbDdremM3RkFBQTdmViIgc2l0ZUlkPSI0NDY2NTUxIiB0U3RtcD0iMTI4OTU0NjgzMjI3NzE2MSIg%2fI%3d1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d4742BFD1'); if(window.yzq_s)yzq_s(); ; var t = csell_token_map; csell_GLOBAL_INIT_TAG(); YStore.page = t ; YStore.currencySymbol = t ; YStore.crossSellUrl = t ; YStore.showCSRecs = t ; ___FCKsi___8 ___FCKsi___9 ___FCKsi___10 ___FCKsi___11 ___FCKsi___12 ___FCKsi___13 ___FCKsi___14
Richard Frackowiak Service de Neurologie, Switzerland 科研生涯与学术成就： http://f1000medicine.com/member/1713420654492187 主要论著与被引用情况： http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=enq=Richard+FrackowiakbtnG=Searchas_sdt=2000as_ylo=as_vis=0 Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: a general linear approach psu.edu , JP Poline, CD Frith, RSJ Frackowiak - Human Brain , 1994 - interscience.wiley.com Abstract: Statistical parametric maps are spatially extended statistical processes that are used to test hypotheses about regionally specific effects in neuroimaging data. The most established sorts of statistical parametric maps (eg, Friston et al. : J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 11: ... Cited by 4763 - Related articles - All 27 versions Spatial registration and normalization of images psu.edu , JB Poline, JD Heather, RSJ Frackowiak - Human Brain , 1995 - interscience.wiley.com Abstract: This paper concerns the spatial and intensity transformations that map one image onto another. We present a general technique that facilitates nonlinear spatial (stereotactic) normalization and image realignment. This technique minimizes the sum of squares between two ... Cited by 2139 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 19 versions A voxel-based morphometric study of ageing in 465 normal adult human brains gmu.edu J Ashburner, RNA Henson, KJ Friston, RSJ Frackowiak - Neuroimage, 2001 - Elsevier Voxel-based-morphometry (VBM) is a whole-brain, unbiased technique for characterizing regional cerebral volume and tissue concentration differences in structural magnetic resonance images. We describe an optimized method of VBM to examine the effects of age on grey ... Cited by 1354 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 8 versions Human brain function RSJ Frackowiak - 2004 - books.google.com This book is printed on acid-free paper. Copyright 2004, Elsevier Science (USA). All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information ... Cited by 848 - Related articles - Find in ChinaCat - All 4 versions The anatomy of phonological and semantic processing in normal subjects , JL Nespoulous, R Wise, A RASCOL, R Frackowiak - Brain, 1992 - Oxford Univ Press We assessed brain activation of nine normal right-handed volunteers in a positron emission tomography study designed to differentiate the functional anatomy of the two major components of auditory comprehension of language, namely phonological versus lexico-semantic ... Cited by 837 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 5 versions Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers pnas.org Good, J Ashburner, RSJ Frackowiak , - Proceedings of the , 2000 - National Acad Sciences Structural MRIs of the brains of humans with extensive navigation experience, licensed London taxi drivers, were analyzed and compared with those of control subjects who did not drive taxis. The posterior hippocampi of taxi drivers were significantly larger relative to those of ... Cited by 712 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 36 versions Grafts of fetal dopamine neurons survive and improve motor function in Parkinson's disease lu.se , B Gustavii, R Frackowiak , KL Leenders, G Sawle, - Science( , 1990 - med.lu.se 4. T. Honor, J. С Watkins, HJ Olverman, Eur. J. Pharmacol. 136, 137 (1987). 5. MJ Sheardown, ibid. 148, 471 (1988). 6. С.-M. Tang, M. Dichter, M. Morad, Science 243, 1474 (1989). 7. JR Busto et ai., J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metabol. 7, 729 (1987). 8. A. С Foster, R. ... Cited by 552 - Related articles - All 9 versions Distribution of cortical neural networks involved in word comprehension and word retrieval Chollet, URI Hadar, K Friston, E Hoffner, R Frackowiak - Brain, 1991 - Oxford Univ Press Six normal volunteers were studied with positron emission tomography to identify the cortical neural networks that participate in the processing of single words. Activity-related changes in regional cerebral blood flow were measured consecutively on 6 occasions in each ... Cited by 620 - Related articles - All 5 versions Movement-related effects in fMRI time-series psu.edu Friston, S Williams, R Howard, RSJ Frackowiak - Magnetic resonance in , 1996 - Citeseer Page 1. 1 Movement-related effects in fMRI time-series Friston KJ1, Williams S2, Howard R2, Frackowiak RSJ1 and Turner R1. 1. The Wellcome Dept. of Cognitive Neurology, The Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, WC1N 3BG, UK ... Cited by 579 - Related articles - View as HTML - BL Direct - All 11 versions Functional reorganization of the brain in recovery from striatocapsular infarction in man , KJ Friston, RJS Wise, RSJ Frackowiak - Annals of , 1992 - interscience.wiley.com We used positron emission tomography (PET) to study organizational changes in the functional anatomy of the brain in 10 patients following recovery from striatocapsular motor strokes. Comparisons of regional cerebral blood flow maps at rest between the patients and 10 normal subjects ... Cited by 516 - Related articles - All 3 versions Hypothalamic activation in cluster headache attacks A May, A Bahra, C Bchel, RSJ Frackowiak , PJ - The Lancet, 1998 - Elsevier Cluster headache, one of the most severe pain syndromes in human beings, is usually described as a vascular headache. However, the striking circadian rhythmicity of this strictly half-sided pain syndrome cannot be readily explained by the vascular hypothesis. We aimed to assess ... Cited by 535 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 4 versions Quantitative measurement of regional cerebral blood flow and oxygen metabolism in man using 15O and positron emission tomography: theory, procedure, and RSJ Frackowiak , GL Lenzi, T Jones, JD - Journal of Computer , 1980 - journals.lww.com 728 RSJ FRACKOWIAK ET AL. is attained within three half-lives, when the contin- uous arrival of 150 to the brain is balanced by its washout and rate of radioactive decay. The activity measured in the brain at this equilibrium is due solely to 150-labelled water, which is generated in ... Cited by 523 - Related articles - All 3 versions Cerebral asymmetry and the effects of sex and handedness on brain structure: a voxel-based morphometric analysis of 465 normal adult human brains purdue.edu J Ashburner, RNA Henson, KJ Friston, RSJ Frackowiak - Neuroimage, 2001 - Elsevier We used voxel-based morphometry (VBM) to examine human brain asymmetry and the effects of sex and handedness on brain structure in 465 normal adults. We observed significant asymmetry of cerebral grey and white matter in the occipital, frontal, and temporal lobes (petalia), ... Cited by 467 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 8 versions Knowing where and getting there: a human navigation network psu.edu , N Burgess, JG Donnett, RSJ Frackowiak , CD Frith, J O - Science, 1998 - sciencemag.org The neural basis of navigation by humans was investigated with functional neuroimaging of brain activity during navigation in a familiar, yet complex virtual reality town. Activation of the right hippocampus was strongly associated with knowing accurately where places were located and ... Cited by 507 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 21 versions The anatomy of melancholiafocal abnormalities of cerebral blood flow in major depression , RG Brown, LC Scott, RSJ Frackowiak , - Psychological , 2009 - Cambridge Univ Press SYNOPSIS Using positron emission tomography (PET) and 15Oxygen, regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) was measured in 33 patients with primary depression, 10 of whom had an associated severe cognitive impairment, and 23 age-matched controls. PET scans from these groups ... Cited by 471 - Related articles - All 4 versions The prefrontal cortex: response selection or maintenance within working memory? free.fr JB Rowe, I Toni, O Josephs, RSJ Frackowiak , RE - Science, 2000 - sciencemag.org This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. ... . clicking here colleagues, clients, or customers by ... , you can order high-quality copies for your ... If you wish to distribute this article to others ... Permission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles Cited by 458 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 14 versions Is developmental dyslexia a disconnection syndrome?: Evidence from PET scanning oxfordjournals.org , M Snowling, A Gallagher, J Morton, RSJ Frackowiak , - Brain, 1996 - Oxford Univ Press Summary A rhyming and a short-term memory task with visually presented letters were used to study brain activity in five compensated adult developmental dyslexics. Their only cognitive difficulty was in phonological processing, manifest in a wide range of tasks including ... Cited by 444 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 6 versions Noun and verb retrieval by normal subjects studies with PET oxfordjournals.org Price, C Weiller, U Hadar, S Ramsay, RSJ Frackowiak - Brain, 1996 - Oxford Univ Press XMRC Clinical Science Centre, Cyclotron Unit, Hammersmith Hospital, the 2Academic Department of Neurosciences, Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School, London, UK, the 3Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitatsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstrafie 55, 45122, Essen, ... Cited by 408 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 5 versions The cortical localization of the lexicons: Positron emission tomography evidence WD Brown, K FRISTON, C WEILLER, R FRACKOWIAK - Brain, 1992 - Oxford Univ Press Positron emission tomography was used to investigate changes in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) in neurologically normal subjects during word reading and word repetition. The blood flow in these conditions was compared with control conditions where subjects were ... Cited by 400 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 5 versions The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language A positron emission tomography activation study , E Paulesu, P Schenone, P Scarpa, RSJ Frackowiak , D - Brain, 1994 - Oxford Univ Press Summary We investigated cerebral activity in six normal volunteers using PET to explore the hypothesis that the right hemisphere has a specific role in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language such as metaphors. We also mapped the anatomical structures involved in ... Cited by 407 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 7 versions Recalling routes around London: activation of the right hippocampus in taxi drivers cjb.net EA Maguire, RSJ Frackowiak , CD Frith - Journal of Neuroscience, 1997 - neuro.cjb.net Functional imaging to date has examined the neural basis of knowledge of spatial layouts of large-scale environments typically in the context of episodic memory with specific spatiotemporal references. Much human behavior, however, takes place in very familiar environments in ... Cited by 342 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 15 versions A voxel-based morphometry study of semantic dementia: relationship between temporal lobe atrophy and semantic memory stanford.edu , CJ Price, J Ashburner, RSJ Frackowiak , - Annals of , 2000 - interscience.wiley.com The cortical anatomy of 6 patients with semantic dementia (the temporal lobe variant of frontotemporal dementia) was contrasted with that of a group of age-matched normal subjects by using voxel-based morphometry, a technique that identifies changes in gray matter volume on a ... Cited by 359 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 5 versions The neuroanatomy of autism: a voxel-based whole brain analysis of structural scans Passingham, K Friston, R Frackowiak , F Happ, C - Neuroreport, 1999 - journals.lww.com AUTISM is a biological disorder which affects social cognition, and understanding brain abnormalities of the former will elucidate the brain basis of the latter. We report structural MRI data on 15 high-functioning individuals with autistic disorder. A voxel-based whole brain analysis ... Cited by 284 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 6 versions Multiple nonprimary motor areas in the human cortex physiology.org GR Fink, RSJ Frackowiak , U Pietrzyk, - Journal of , 1997 - Am Physiological Soc In 1952, Woolsey et al. stimulated the medial frontal surface with electrodes and identified an area that they termed the supplementary motor cortex. Subsequent studies have been able to identify several more nonprimary motor areas by using stimulation with ... Cited by 271 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 3 versions Evidence for long-term survival and function of dopaminergic grafts in progressive Parkinson's disease , P Brundin, R Frackowiak , CD Marsden, P - Annals of , 1994 - interscience.wiley.com Olle Lindvall, MD, PhD, Guy Sawle, MD,Bn HAkan Widner, MD, PhD,* John C. Rothwell, PhD, Anders Bjorklund, PhD,?: David Brooks, MD,' Patrik Brundin, MD, PhD, Richard Frackowiak , MD,' C. David Marsden, DSc, FRS,IIn Per Odin, MD, PhD, and Stig ... Cited by 251 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 3 versions Changes in cerebral activity pattern due to subthalamic nucleus or internal pallidum stimulation in Parkinson's disease , J Rothwell, AL Benabid, R Frackowiak - Annals of , 1997 - interscience.wiley.com High-frequency electrical stimulation of the internal pallidum (GPi) or the subthalamic nucleus (STN) improves clinical symptoms of Parkinson's disease. In 12 parkinsonian patients, 6 with STN and 6 with GPi stimulators, we used H,I5O positron emission tomography to evaluate ... Cited by 287 - Related articles - BL Direct - All 3 versions The nigrostriatal dopaminergic system assessed in vivo by positron emission tomography in healthy volunteer subjects and patients with Parkinson's disease , T Jones, CD Marsden, RSJ Frackowiak - Archives of , 1990 - Am Med Assoc A group of healthy control subjects and patients with Parkinson's disease were investigated using positron emission tomography and two tracers as indicators of different specific properties of the presynaptic dopaminergic system in caudate nucleus and putamen. The first tracer, ... Cited by 255 - Related articles - All 4 versions Theory of mind Frith, M Johansson, C Gillberg, R Dolan, R Frackowiak - from a PET scan study of , 1996 Cited by 274 - Related articles Plastic transformation of PET images , CD Frith, PF Liddle, RSJ Frackowiak - Journal of Computer , 1991 - journals.lww.com Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 15(4):634-639, My/August 1991 Raven Press, Ltd., New York Plastic Transformation of PET Images Karl J. Friston, Christopher D. Frith, Peter F. Liddle, and Richard SJ Frackowiak Abstract: A theory and technique are presented that ... Cited by 235 - Related articles - All 3 versions Human fetal dopamine neurons grafted into the striatum in two patients with severe Parkinson's disease: a detailed account of methodology and a 6-month follow-up , JC Rothwell, R Frackowiak , CD Marsden, B - Archives of , 1989 - Am Med Assoc By using stereotaxic surgical techniques, ventral mesencephalic tissues from aborted human fetuses of 8 to 10 weeks' gestational age were implanted unilaterally into the striata in two patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. The patients were treated with a cyclosporine, ... Cited by 221 - Related articles - All 3 versions
美国著名计算机科学家Richard Hamming在一次著名演讲中介绍了他换工作的理由： The moment that physics table lost the best people, I left. The moment I saw that the same was true of the chemistry table, I left. I tried to go with people who had great ability so I could learn from them and who would expect great results out of me. 翻译如下： 当物理学餐桌（工作餐时物理学家坐的餐桌）流失了最好的人才时，我离开了。我看见化学餐桌也发生同样事情时，我离开了。我试图和有伟大能力的人在一起，因此我可以向他们学习；我也试图和期待我有伟大成果的人在一起。 由此可以看出，这个牛人换工作的原因有两点：一是可以和其他牛人一起工作，通过向他人学习提高自己水平；二是与伯乐一起工作，自己的能力可以得到最大发挥和认可。 哈明演讲与答问附件
可 真老师转载了著名计算机科学家Richard Hamming发表的著名演讲《你和你的研究》中文翻译版。我在网上找到了英文全文，连接地址如下： http://www.paulgraham.com/hamming.html 附件为演讲全文的PDF文件，感兴趣的朋友可以下载 演讲全文如下： Talk at Bellcore, 7 March 1986 The title of my talk is, ``You and Your Research.'' It is not about managing research, it is about how you individually do your research. I could give a talk on the other subject-- but it's not, it's about you. I'm not talking about ordinary run-of-the-mill research; I'm talking about great research. And for the sake of describing great research I'll occasionally say Nobel-Prize type of work. It doesn't have to gain the Nobel Prize, but I mean those kinds of things which we perceive are significant things. Relativity, if you want, Shannon's information theory, any number of outstanding theories-- that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Now, how did I come to do this study? At Los Alamos I was brought in to run the computing machines which other people had got going, so those scientists and physicists could get back to business. I saw I was a stooge. I saw that although physically I was the same, they were different. And to put the thing bluntly, I was envious. I wanted to know why they were so different from me. I saw Feynman up close. I saw Fermi and Teller. I saw Oppenheimer. I saw Hans Bethe: he was my boss. I saw quite a few very capable people. I became very interested in the difference between those who do and those who might have done. When I came to Bell Labs, I came into a very productive department. Bode was the department head at the time; Shannon was there, and there were other people. I continued examining the questions, ``Why?'' and ``What is the difference?'' I continued subsequently by reading biographies, autobiographies, asking people questions such as: ``How did you come to do this?'' I tried to find out what are the differences. And that's what this talk is about. Now, why is this talk important? I think it is important because, as far as I know, each of you has one life to live. Even if you believe in reincarnation it doesn't do you any good from one life to the next! Why shouldn't you do significant things in this one life, however you define significant? I'm not going to define it - you know what I mean. I will talk mainly about science because that is what I have studied. But so far as I know, and I've been told by others, much of what I say applies to many fields. Outstanding work is characterized very much the same way in most fields, but I will confine myself to science. In order to get at you individually, I must talk in the first person. I have to get you to drop modesty and say to yourself, ``Yes, I would like to do first-class work.'' Our society frowns on people who set out to do really good work. You're not supposed to; luck is supposed to descend on you and you do great things by chance. Well, that's a kind of dumb thing to say. I say, why shouldn't you set out to do something significant. You don't have to tell other people, but shouldn't you say to yourself, ``Yes, I would like to do something significant.'' In order to get to the second stage, I have to drop modesty and talk in the first person about what I've seen, what I've done, and what I've heard. I'm going to talk about people, some of whom you know, and I trust that when we leave, you won't quote me as saying some of the things I said. Let me start not logically, but psychologically. I find that the major objection is that people think great science is done by luck. It's all a matter of luck. Well, consider Einstein. Note how many different things he did that were good. Was it all luck? Wasn't it a little too repetitive? Consider Shannon. He didn't do just information theory. Several years before, he did some other good things and some which are still locked up in the security of cryptography. He did many good things. You see again and again, that it is more than one thing from a good person. Once in a while a person does only one thing in his whole life, and we'll talk about that later, but a lot of times there is repetition. I claim that luck will not cover everything. And I will cite Pasteur who said, ``Luck favors the prepared mind.'' And I think that says it the way I believe it. There is indeed an element of luck, and no, there isn't. The prepared mind sooner or later finds something important and does it. So yes, it is luck. The particular thing you do is luck, but that you do something is not. For example, when I came to Bell Labs, I shared an office for a while with Shannon. At the same time he was doing information theory, I was doing coding theory. It is suspicious that the two of us did it at the same place and at the same time - it was in the atmosphere. And you can say, ``Yes, it was luck.'' On the other hand you can say, ``But why of all the people in Bell Labs then were those the two who did it?'' Yes, it is partly luck, and partly it is the prepared mind; but `partly' is the other thing I'm going to talk about. So, although I'll come back several more times to luck, I want to dispose of this matter of luck as being the sole criterion whether you do great work or not. I claim you have some, but not total, control over it. And I will quote, finally, Newton on the matter. Newton said, ``If others would think as hard as I did, then they would get similar results.'' One of the characteristics you see, and many people have it including great scientists, is that usually when they were young they had independent thoughts and had the courage to pursue them. For example, Einstein, somewhere around 12 or 14, asked himself the question, ``What would a light wave look like if I went with the velocity of light to look at it?'' Now he knew that electromagnetic theory says you cannot have a stationary local maximum. But if he moved along with the velocity of light, he would see a local maximum. He could see a contradiction at the age of 12, 14, or somewhere around there, that everything was not right and that the velocity of light had something peculiar. Is it luck that he finally created special relativity? Early on, he had laid down some of the pieces by thinking of the fragments. Now that's the necessary but not sufficient condition. All of these items I will talk about are both luck and not luck. How about having lots of `brains?' It sounds good. Most of you in this room probably have more than enough brains to do first-class work. But great work is something else than mere brains. Brains are measured in various ways. In mathematics, theoretical physics, astrophysics, typically brains correlates to a great extent with the ability to manipulate symbols. And so the typical IQ test is apt to score them fairly high. On the other hand, in other fields it is something different. For example, Bill Pfann, the fellow who did zone melting, came into my office one day. He had this idea dimly in his mind about what he wanted and he had some equations. It was pretty clear to me that this man didn't know much mathematics and he wasn't really articulate. His problem seemed interesting so I took it home and did a little work. I finally showed him how to run computers so he could compute his own answers. I gave him the power to compute. He went ahead, with negligible recognition from his own department, but ultimately he has collected all the prizes in the field. Once he got well started, his shyness, his awkwardness, his inarticulateness, fell away and he became much more productive in many other ways. Certainly he became much more articulate. And I can cite another person in the same way. I trust he isn't in the audience, i.e. a fellow named Clogston. I met him when I was working on a problem with John Pierce's group and I didn't think he had much. I asked my friends who had been with him at school, ``Was he like that in graduate school?'' ``Yes,'' they replied. Well I would have fired the fellow, but J. R. Pierce was smart and kept him on. Clogston finally did the Clogston cable. After that there was a steady stream of good ideas. One success brought him confidence and courage. One of the characteristics of successful scientists is having courage. Once you get your courage up and believe that you can do important problems, then you can. If you think you can't, almost surely you are not going to. Courage is one of the things that Shannon had supremely. You have only to think of his major theorem. He wants to create a method of coding, but he doesn't know what to do so he makes a random code. Then he is stuck. And then he asks the impossible question, ``What would the average random code do?'' He then proves that the average code is arbitrarily good, and that therefore there must be at least one good code. Who but a man of infinite courage could have dared to think those thoughts? That is the characteristic of great scientists; they have courage. They will go forward under incredible circumstances; they think and continue to think. Age is another factor which the physicists particularly worry about. They always are saying that you have got to do it when you are young or you will never do it. Einstein did things very early, and all the quantum mechanic fellows were disgustingly young when they did their best work. Most mathematicians, theoretical physicists, and astrophysicists do what we consider their best work when they are young. It is not that they don't do good work in their old age but what we value most is often what they did early. On the other hand, in music, politics and literature, often what we consider their best work was done late. I don't know how whatever field you are in fits this scale, but age has some effect. But let me say why age seems to have the effect it does. In the first place if you do some good work you will find yourself on all kinds of committees and unable to do any more work. You may find yourself as I saw Brattain when he got a Nobel Prize. The day the prize was announced we all assembled in Arnold Auditorium; all three winners got up and made speeches. The third one, Brattain, practically with tears in his eyes, said, ``I know about this Nobel-Prize effect and I am not going to let it affect me; I am going to remain good old Walter Brattain.'' Well I said to myself, ``That is nice.'' But in a few weeks I saw it was affecting him. Now he could only work on great problems. When you are famous it is hard to work on small problems. This is what did Shannon in. After information theory, what do you do for an encore? The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn't the way things go. So that is another reason why you find that when you get early recognition it seems to sterilize you. In fact I will give you my favorite quotation of many years. The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after. Not that they weren't good afterwards, but they were superb before they got there and were only good afterwards. This brings up the subject, out of order perhaps, of working conditions. What most people think are the best working conditions, are not. Very clearly they are not because people are often most productive when working conditions are bad. One of the better times of the Cambridge Physical Laboratories was when they had practically shacks - they did some of the best physics ever. I give you a story from my own private life. Early on it became evident to me that Bell Laboratories was not going to give me the conventional acre of programming people to program computing machines in absolute binary. It was clear they weren't going to. But that was the way everybody did it. I could go to the West Coast and get a job with the airplane companies without any trouble, but the exciting people were at Bell Labs and the fellows out there in the airplane companies were not. I thought for a long while about, ``Did I want to go or not?'' and I wondered how I could get the best of two possible worlds. I finally said to myself, ``Hamming, you think the machines can do practically everything. Why can't you make them write programs?'' What appeared at first to me as a defect forced me into automatic programming very early. What appears to be a fault, often, by a change of viewpoint, turns out to be one of the greatest assets you can have. But you are not likely to think that when you first look the thing and say, ``Gee, I'm never going to get enough programmers, so how can I ever do any great programming?'' And there are many other stories of the same kind; Grace Hopper has similar ones. I think that if you look carefully you will see that often the great scientists, by turning the problem around a bit, changed a defect to an asset. For example, many scientists when they found they couldn't do a problem finally began to study why not. They then turned it around the other way and said, ``But of course, this is what it is'' and got an important result. So ideal working conditions are very strange. The ones you want aren't always the best ones for you. Now for the matter of drive. You observe that most great scientists have tremendous drive. I worked for ten years with John Tukey at Bell Labs. He had tremendous drive. One day about three or four years after I joined, I discovered that John Tukey was slightly younger than I was. John was a genius and I clearly was not. Well I went storming into Bode's office and said, ``How can anybody my age know as much as John Tukey does?'' He leaned back in his chair, put his hands behind his head, grinned slightly, and said, ``You would be surprised Hamming, how much you would know if you worked as hard as he did that many years.'' I simply slunk out of the office! What Bode was saying was this: ``Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest.'' Given two people of approximately the same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity - it is very much like compound interest. I don't want to give you a rate, but it is a very high rate. Given two people with exactly the same ability, the one person who manages day in and day out to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more productive over a lifetime. I took Bode's remark to heart; I spent a good deal more of my time for some years trying to work a bit harder and I found, in fact, I could get more work done. I don't like to say it in front of my wife, but I did sort of neglect her sometimes; I needed to study. You have to neglect things if you intend to get what you want done. There's no question about this. On this matter of drive Edison says, ``Genius is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration.'' He may have been exaggerating, but the idea is that solid work, steadily applied, gets you surprisingly far. The steady application of effort with a little bit more work, intelligently applied is what does it. That's the trouble; drive, misapplied, doesn't get you anywhere. I've often wondered why so many of my good friends at Bell Labs who worked as hard or harder than I did, didn't have so much to show for it. The misapplication of effort is a very serious matter. Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly. There's another trait on the side which I want to talk about; that trait is ambiguity. It took me a while to discover its importance. Most people like to believe something is or is not true. Great scientists tolerate ambiguity very well. They believe the theory enough to go ahead; they doubt it enough to notice the errors and faults so they can step forward and create the new replacement theory. If you believe too much you'll never notice the flaws; if you doubt too much you won't get started. It requires a lovely balance. But most great scientists are well aware of why their theories are true and they are also well aware of some slight misfits which don't quite fit and they don't forget it. Darwin writes in his autobiography that he found it necessary to write down every piece of evidence which appeared to contradict his beliefs because otherwise they would disappear from his mind. When you find apparent flaws you've got to be sensitive and keep track of those things, and keep an eye out for how they can be explained or how the theory can be changed to fit them. Those are often the great contributions. Great contributions are rarely done by adding another decimal place. It comes down to an emotional commitment. Most great scientists are completely committed to their problem. Those who don't become committed seldom produce outstanding, first-class work. Now again, emotional commitment is not enough. It is a necessary condition apparently. And I think I can tell you the reason why. Everybody who has studied creativity is driven finally to saying, ``creativity comes out of your subconscious.'' Somehow, suddenly, there it is. It just appears. Well, we know very little about the subconscious; but one thing you are pretty well aware of is that your dreams also come out of your subconscious. And you're aware your dreams are, to a fair extent, a reworking of the experiences of the day. If you are deeply immersed and committed to a topic, day after day after day, your subconscious has nothing to do but work on your problem. And so you wake up one morning, or on some afternoon, and there's the answer. For those who don't get committed to their current problem, the subconscious goofs off on other things and doesn't produce the big result. So the way to manage yourself is that when you have a real important problem you don't let anything else get the center of your attention - you keep your thoughts on the problem. Keep your subconscious starved so it has to work on your problem, so you can sleep peacefully and get the answer in the morning, free. Now Alan Chynoweth mentioned that I used to eat at the physics table. I had been eating with the mathematicians and I found out that I already knew a fair amount of mathematics; in fact, I wasn't learning much. The physics table was, as he said, an exciting place, but I think he exaggerated on how much I contributed. It was very interesting to listen to Shockley, Brattain, Bardeen, J. B. Johnson, Ken McKay and other people, and I was learning a lot. But unfortunately a Nobel Prize came, and a promotion came, and what was left was the dregs. Nobody wanted what was left. Well, there was no use eating with them! Over on the other side of the dining hall was a chemistry table. I had worked with one of the fellows, Dave McCall; furthermore he was courting our secretary at the time. I went over and said, ``Do you mind if I join you?'' They can't say no, so I started eating with them for a while. And I started asking, ``What are the important problems of your field?'' And after a week or so, ``What important problems are you working on?'' And after some more time I came in one day and said, ``If what you are doing is not important, and if you don't think it is going to lead to something important, why are you at Bell Labs working on it?'' I wasn't welcomed after that; I had to find somebody else to eat with! That was in the spring. In the fall, Dave McCall stopped me in the hall and said, ``Hamming, that remark of yours got underneath my skin. I thought about it all summer, i.e. what were the important problems in my field. I haven't changed my research,'' he says, ``but I think it was well worthwhile.'' And I said, ``Thank you Dave,'' and went on. I noticed a couple of months later he was made the head of the department. I noticed the other day he was a Member of the National Academy of Engineering. I noticed he has succeeded. I have never heard the names of any of the other fellows at that table mentioned in science and scientific circles. They were unable to ask themselves, ``What are the important problems in my field?'' If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work. It's perfectly obvious. Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem' must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. We didn't work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity. They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It's not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack. That is what makes a problem important. When I say that most scientists don't work on important problems, I mean it in that sense. The average scientist, so far as I can make out, spends almost all his time working on problems which he believes will not be important and he also doesn't believe that they will lead to important problems. I spoke earlier about planting acorns so that oaks will grow. You can't always know exactly where to be, but you can keep active in places where something might happen. And even if you believe that great science is a matter of luck, you can stand on a mountain top where lightning strikes; you don't have to hide in the valley where you're safe. But the average scientist does routine safe work almost all the time and so he (or she) doesn't produce much. It's that simple. If you want to do great work, you clearly must work on important problems, and you should have an idea. Along those lines at some urging from John Tukey and others, I finally adopted what I called ``Great Thoughts Time.'' When I went to lunch Friday noon, I would only discuss great thoughts after that. By great thoughts I mean ones like: ``What will be the role of computers in all of ATT?'', ``How will computers change science?'' For example, I came up with the observation at that time that nine out of ten experiments were done in the lab and one in ten on the computer. I made a remark to the vice presidents one time, that it would be reversed, i.e. nine out of ten experiments would be done on the computer and one in ten in the lab. They knew I was a crazy mathematician and had no sense of reality. I knew they were wrong and they've been proved wrong while I have been proved right. They built laboratories when they didn't need them. I saw that computers were transforming science because I spent a lot of time asking ``What will be the impact of computers on science and how can I change it?'' I asked myself, ``How is it going to change Bell Labs?'' I remarked one time, in the same address, that more than one-half of the people at Bell Labs will be interacting closely with computing machines before I leave. Well, you all have terminals now. I thought hard about where was my field going, where were the opportunities, and what were the important things to do. Let me go there so there is a chance I can do important things. Most great scientists know many important problems. They have something between 10 and 20 important problems for which they are looking for an attack. And when they see a new idea come up, one hears them say ``Well that bears on this problem.'' They drop all the other things and get after it. Now I can tell you a horror story that was told to me but I can't vouch for the truth of it. I was sitting in an airport talking to a friend of mine from Los Alamos about how it was lucky that the fission experiment occurred over in Europe when it did because that got us working on the atomic bomb here in the US. He said ``No; at Berkeley we had gathered a bunch of data; we didn't get around to reducing it because we were building some more equipment, but if we had reduced that data we would have found fission.'' They had it in their hands and they didn't pursue it. They came in second! The great scientists, when an opportunity opens up, get after it and they pursue it. They drop all other things. They get rid of other things and they get after an idea because they had already thought the thing through. Their minds are prepared; they see the opportunity and they go after it. Now of course lots of times it doesn't work out, but you don't have to hit many of them to do some great science. It's kind of easy. One of the chief tricks is to live a long time! Another trait, it took me a while to notice. I noticed the following facts about people who work with the door open or the door closed. I notice that if you have the door to your office closed, you get more work done today and tomorrow, and you are more productive than most. But 10 years later somehow you don't know quite know what problems are worth working on; all the hard work you do is sort of tangential in importance. He who works with the door open gets all kinds of interruptions, but he also occasionally gets clues as to what the world is and what might be important. Now I cannot prove the cause and effect sequence because you might say, ``The closed door is symbolic of a closed mind.'' I don't know. But I can say there is a pretty good correlation between those who work with the doors open and those who ultimately do important things, although people who work with doors closed often work harder. Somehow they seem to work on slightly the wrong thing - not much, but enough that they miss fame. I want to talk on another topic. It is based on the song which I think many of you know, ``It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it.'' I'll start with an example of my own. I was conned into doing on a digital computer, in the absolute binary days, a problem which the best analog computers couldn't do. And I was getting an answer. When I thought carefully and said to myself, ``You know, Hamming, you're going to have to file a report on this military job; after you spend a lot of money you're going to have to account for it and every analog installation is going to want the report to see if they can't find flaws in it.'' I was doing the required integration by a rather crummy method, to say the least, but I was getting the answer. And I realized that in truth the problem was not just to get the answer; it was to demonstrate for the first time, and beyond question, that I could beat the analog computer on its own ground with a digital machine. I reworked the method of solution, created a theory which was nice and elegant, and changed the way we computed the answer; the results were no different. The published report had an elegant method which was later known for years as ``Hamming's Method of Integrating Differential Equations.'' It is somewhat obsolete now, but for a while it was a very good method. By changing the problem slightly, I did important work rather than trivial work. In the same way, when using the machine up in the attic in the early days, I was solving one problem after another after another; a fair number were successful and there were a few failures. I went home one Friday after finishing a problem, and curiously enough I wasn't happy; I was depressed. I could see life being a long sequence of one problem after another after another. After quite a while of thinking I decided, ``No, I should be in the mass production of a variable product. I should be concerned with all of next year's problems, not just the one in front of my face.'' By changing the question I still got the same kind of results or better, but I changed things and did important work. I attacked the major problem - How do I conquer machines and do all of next year's problems when I don't know what they are going to be? How do I prepare for it? How do I do this one so I'll be on top of it? How do I obey Newton's rule? He said, ``If I have seen further than others, it is because I've stood on the shoulders of giants.'' These days we stand on each other's feet! You should do your job in such a fashion that others can build on top of it, so they will indeed say, ``Yes, I've stood on so and so's shoulders and I saw further.'' The essence of science is cumulative. By changing a problem slightly you can often do great work rather than merely good work. Instead of attacking isolated problems, I made the resolution that I would never again solve an isolated problem except as characteristic of a class. Now if you are much of a mathematician you know that the effort to generalize often means that the solution is simple. Often by stopping and saying, ``This is the problem he wants but this is characteristic of so and so. Yes, I can attack the whole class with a far superior method than the particular one because I was earlier embedded in needless detail.'' The business of abstraction frequently makes things simple. Furthermore, I filed away the methods and prepared for the future problems. To end this part, I'll remind you, ``It is a poor workman who blames his tools - the good man gets on with the job, given what he's got, and gets the best answer he can.'' And I suggest that by altering the problem, by looking at the thing differently, you can make a great deal of difference in your final productivity because you can either do it in such a fashion that people can indeed build on what you've done, or you can do it in such a fashion that the next person has to essentially duplicate again what you've done. It isn't just a matter of the job, it's the way you write the report, the way you write the paper, the whole attitude. It's just as easy to do a broad, general job as one very special case. And it's much more satisfying and rewarding! I have now come down to a topic which is very distasteful; it is not sufficient to do a job, you have to sell it. `Selling' to a scientist is an awkward thing to do. It's very ugly; you shouldn't have to do it. The world is supposed to be waiting, and when you do something great, they should rush out and welcome it. But the fact is everyone is busy with their own work. You must present it so well that they will set aside what they are doing, look at what you've done, read it, and come back and say, ``Yes, that was good.'' I suggest that when you open a journal, as you turn the pages, you ask why you read some articles and not others. You had better write your report so when it is published in the Physical Review, or wherever else you want it, as the readers are turning the pages they won't just turn your pages but they will stop and read yours. If they don't stop and read it, you won't get credit. There are three things you have to do in selling. You have to learn to write clearly and well so that people will read it, you must learn to give reasonably formal talks, and you also must learn to give informal talks. We had a lot of so-called `back room scientists.' In a conference, they would keep quiet. Three weeks later after a decision was made they filed a report saying why you should do so and so. Well, it was too late. They would not stand up right in the middle of a hot conference, in the middle of activity, and say, ``We should do this for these reasons.'' You need to master that form of communication as well as prepared speeches. When I first started, I got practically physically ill while giving a speech, and I was very, very nervous. I realized I either had to learn to give speeches smoothly or I would essentially partially cripple my whole career. The first time IBM asked me to give a speech in New York one evening, I decided I was going to give a really good speech, a speech that was wanted, not a technical one but a broad one, and at the end if they liked it, I'd quietly say, ``Any time you want one I'll come in and give you one.'' As a result, I got a great deal of practice giving speeches to a limited audience and I got over being afraid. Furthermore, I could also then study what methods were effective and what were ineffective. While going to meetings I had already been studying why some papers are remembered and most are not. The technical person wants to give a highly limited technical talk. Most of the time the audience wants a broad general talk and wants much more survey and background than the speaker is willing to give. As a result, many talks are ineffective. The speaker names a topic and suddenly plunges into the details he's solved. Few people in the audience may follow. You should paint a general picture to say why it's important, and then slowly give a sketch of what was done. Then a larger number of people will say, ``Yes, Joe has done that,'' or ``Mary has done that; I really see where it is; yes, Mary really gave a good talk; I understand what Mary has done.'' The tendency is to give a highly restricted, safe talk; this is usually ineffective. Furthermore, many talks are filled with far too much information. So I say this idea of selling is obvious. Let me summarize. You've got to work on important problems. I deny that it is all luck, but I admit there is a fair element of luck. I subscribe to Pasteur's ``Luck favors the prepared mind.'' I favor heavily what I did. Friday afternoons for years - great thoughts only - means that I committed 10% of my time trying to understand the bigger problems in the field, i.e. what was and what was not important. I found in the early days I had believed `this' and yet had spent all week marching in `that' direction. It was kind of foolish. If I really believe the action is over there, why do I march in this direction? I either had to change my goal or change what I did. So I changed something I did and I marched in the direction I thought was important. It's that easy. Now you might tell me you haven't got control over what you have to work on. Well, when you first begin, you may not. But once you're moderately successful, there are more people asking for results than you can deliver and you have some power of choice, but not completely. I'll tell you a story about that, and it bears on the subject of educating your boss. I had a boss named Schelkunoff; he was, and still is, a very good friend of mine. Some military person came to me and demanded some answers by Friday. Well, I had already dedicated my computing resources to reducing data on the fly for a group of scientists; I was knee deep in short, small, important problems. This military person wanted me to solve his problem by the end of the day on Friday. I said, ``No, I'll give it to you Monday. I can work on it over the weekend. I'm not going to do it now.'' He goes down to my boss, Schelkunoff, and Schelkunoff says, ``You must run this for him; he's got to have it by Friday.'' I tell him, ``Why do I?''; he says, ``You have to.'' I said, ``Fine, Sergei, but you're sitting in your office Friday afternoon catching the late bus home to watch as this fellow walks out that door.'' I gave the military person the answers late Friday afternoon. I then went to Schelkunoff's office and sat down; as the man goes out I say, ``You see Schelkunoff, this fellow has nothing under his arm; but I gave him the answers.'' On Monday morning Schelkunoff called him up and said, ``Did you come in to work over the weekend?'' I could hear, as it were, a pause as the fellow ran through his mind of what was going to happen; but he knew he would have had to sign in, and he'd better not say he had when he hadn't, so he said he hadn't. Ever after that Schelkunoff said, ``You set your deadlines; you can change them.'' One lesson was sufficient to educate my boss as to why I didn't want to do big jobs that displaced exploratory research and why I was justified in not doing crash jobs which absorb all the research computing facilities. I wanted instead to use the facilities to compute a large number of small problems. Again, in the early days, I was limited in computing capacity and it was clear, in my area, that a ``mathematician had no use for machines.'' But I needed more machine capacity. Every time I had to tell some scientist in some other area, ``No I can't; I haven't the machine capacity,'' he complained. I said ``Go tell your Vice President that Hamming needs more computing capacity.'' After a while I could see what was happening up there at the top; many people said to my Vice President, ``Your man needs more computing capacity.'' I got it! I also did a second thing. When I loaned what little programming power we had to help in the early days of computing, I said, ``We are not getting the recognition for our programmers that they deserve. When you publish a paper you will thank that programmer or you aren't getting any more help from me. That programmer is going to be thanked by name; she's worked hard.'' I waited a couple of years. I then went through a year of BSTJ articles and counted what fraction thanked some programmer. I took it into the boss and said, ``That's the central role computing is playing in Bell Labs; if the BSTJ is important, that's how important computing is.'' He had to give in. You can educate your bosses. It's a hard job. In this talk I'm only viewing from the bottom up; I'm not viewing from the top down. But I am telling you how you can get what you want in spite of top management. You have to sell your ideas there also. Well I now come down to the topic, ``Is the effort to be a great scientist worth it?'' To answer this, you must ask people. When you get beyond their modesty, most people will say, ``Yes, doing really first-class work, and knowing it, is as good as wine, women and song put together,'' or if it's a woman she says, ``It is as good as wine, men and song put together.'' And if you look at the bosses, they tend to come back or ask for reports, trying to participate in those moments of discovery. They're always in the way. So evidently those who have done it, want to do it again. But it is a limited survey. I have never dared to go out and ask those who didn't do great work how they felt about the matter. It's a biased sample, but I still think it is worth the struggle. I think it is very definitely worth the struggle to try and do first-class work because the truth is, the value is in the struggle more than it is in the result. The struggle to make something of yourself seems to be worthwhile in itself. The success and fame are sort of dividends, in my opinion. I've told you how to do it. It is so easy, so why do so many people, with all their talents, fail? For example, my opinion, to this day, is that there are in the mathematics department at Bell Labs quite a few people far more able and far better endowed than I, but they didn't produce as much. Some of them did produce more than I did; Shannon produced more than I did, and some others produced a lot, but I was highly productive against a lot of other fellows who were better equipped. Why is it so? What happened to them? Why do so many of the people who have great promise, fail? Well, one of the reasons is drive and commitment. The people who do great work with less ability but who are committed to it, get more done that those who have great skill and dabble in it, who work during the day and go home and do other things and come back and work the next day. They don't have the deep commitment that is apparently necessary for really first-class work. They turn out lots of good work, but we were talking, remember, about first-class work. There is a difference. Good people, very talented people, almost always turn out good work. We're talking about the outstanding work, the type of work that gets the Nobel Prize and gets recognition. The second thing is, I think, the problem of personality defects. Now I'll cite a fellow whom I met out in Irvine. He had been the head of a computing center and he was temporarily on assignment as a special assistant to the president of the university. It was obvious he had a job with a great future. He took me into his office one time and showed me his method of getting letters done and how he took care of his correspondence. He pointed out how inefficient the secretary was. He kept all his letters stacked around there; he knew where everything was. And he would, on his word processor, get the letter out. He was bragging how marvelous it was and how he could get so much more work done without the secretary's interference. Well, behind his back, I talked to the secretary. The secretary said, ``Of course I can't help him; I don't get his mail. He won't give me the stuff to log in; I don't know where he puts it on the floor. Of course I can't help him.'' So I went to him and said, ``Look, if you adopt the present method and do what you can do single-handedly, you can go just that far and no farther than you can do single-handedly. If you will learn to work with the system, you can go as far as the system will support you.'' And, he never went any further. He had his personality defect of wanting total control and was not willing to recognize that you need the support of the system. You find this happening again and again; good scientists will fight the system rather than learn to work with the system and take advantage of all the system has to offer. It has a lot, if you learn how to use it. It takes patience, but you can learn how to use the system pretty well, and you can learn how to get around it. After all, if you want a decision `No', you just go to your boss and get a `No' easy. If you want to do something, don't ask, do it. Present him with an accomplished fact. Don't give him a chance to tell you `No'. But if you want a `No', it's easy to get a `No'. Another personality defect is ego assertion and I'll speak in this case of my own experience. I came from Los Alamos and in the early days I was using a machine in New York at 590 Madison Avenue where we merely rented time. I was still dressing in western clothes, big slash pockets, a bolo and all those things. I vaguely noticed that I was not getting as good service as other people. So I set out to measure. You came in and you waited for your turn; I felt I was not getting a fair deal. I said to myself, ``Why? No Vice President at IBM said, `Give Hamming a bad time'. It is the secretaries at the bottom who are doing this. When a slot appears, they'll rush to find someone to slip in, but they go out and find somebody else. Now, why? I haven't mistreated them.'' Answer, I wasn't dressing the way they felt somebody in that situation should. It came down to just that - I wasn't dressing properly. I had to make the decision - was I going to assert my ego and dress the way I wanted to and have it steadily drain my effort from my professional life, or was I going to appear to conform better? I decided I would make an effort to appear to conform properly. The moment I did, I got much better service. And now, as an old colorful character, I get better service than other people. You should dress according to the expectations of the audience spoken to. If I am going to give an address at the MIT computer center, I dress with a bolo and an old corduroy jacket or something else. I know enough not to let my clothes, my appearance, my manners get in the way of what I care about. An enormous number of scientists feel they must assert their ego and do their thing their way. They have got to be able to do this, that, or the other thing, and they pay a steady price. John Tukey almost always dressed very casually. He would go into an important office and it would take a long time before the other fellow realized that this is a first-class man and he had better listen. For a long time John has had to overcome this kind of hostility. It's wasted effort! I didn't say you should conform; I said ``The appearance of conforming gets you a long way.'' If you chose to assert your ego in any number of ways, ``I am going to do it my way,'' you pay a small steady price throughout the whole of your professional career. And this, over a whole lifetime, adds up to an enormous amount of needless trouble. By taking the trouble to tell jokes to the secretaries and being a little friendly, I got superb secretarial help. For instance, one time for some idiot reason all the reproducing services at Murray Hill were tied up. Don't ask me how, but they were. I wanted something done. My secretary called up somebody at Holmdel, hopped the company car, made the hour-long trip down and got it reproduced, and then came back. It was a payoff for the times I had made an effort to cheer her up, tell her jokes and be friendly; it was that little extra work that later paid off for me. By realizing you have to use the system and studying how to get the system to do your work, you learn how to adapt the system to your desires. Or you can fight it steadily, as a small undeclared war, for the whole of your life. And I think John Tukey paid a terrible price needlessly. He was a genius anyhow, but I think it would have been far better, and far simpler, had he been willing to conform a little bit instead of ego asserting. He is going to dress the way he wants all of the time. It applies not only to dress but to a thousand other things; people will continue to fight the system. Not that you shouldn't occasionally! When they moved the library from the middle of Murray Hill to the far end, a friend of mine put in a request for a bicycle. Well, the organization was not dumb. They waited awhile and sent back a map of the grounds saying, ``Will you please indicate on this map what paths you are going to take so we can get an insurance policy covering you.'' A few more weeks went by. They then asked, ``Where are you going to store the bicycle and how will it be locked so we can do so and so.'' He finally realized that of course he was going to be red-taped to death so he gave in. He rose to be the President of Bell Laboratories. Barney Oliver was a good man. He wrote a letter one time to the IEEE. At that time the official shelf space at Bell Labs was so much and the height of the IEEE Proceedings at that time was larger; and since you couldn't change the size of the official shelf space he wrote this letter to the IEEE Publication person saying, ``Since so many IEEE members were at Bell Labs and since the official space was so high the journal size should be changed.'' He sent it for his boss's signature. Back came a carbon with his signature, but he still doesn't know whether the original was sent or not. I am not saying you shouldn't make gestures of reform. I am saying that my study of able people is that they don't get themselves committed to that kind of warfare. They play it a little bit and drop it and get on with their work. Many a second-rate fellow gets caught up in some little twitting of the system, and carries it through to warfare. He expends his energy in a foolish project. Now you are going to tell me that somebody has to change the system. I agree; somebody's has to. Which do you want to be? The person who changes the system or the person who does first-class science? Which person is it that you want to be? Be clear, when you fight the system and struggle with it, what you are doing, how far to go out of amusement, and how much to waste your effort fighting the system. My advice is to let somebody else do it and you get on with becoming a first-class scientist. Very few of you have the ability to both reform the system and become a first-class scientist. On the other hand, we can't always give in. There are times when a certain amount of rebellion is sensible. I have observed almost all scientists enjoy a certain amount of twitting the system for the sheer love of it. What it comes down to basically is that you cannot be original in one area without having originality in others. Originality is being different. You can't be an original scientist without having some other original characteristics. But many a scientist has let his quirks in other places make him pay a far higher price than is necessary for the ego satisfaction he or she gets. I'm not against all ego assertion; I'm against some. Another fault is anger. Often a scientist becomes angry, and this is no way to handle things. Amusement, yes, anger, no. Anger is misdirected. You should follow and cooperate rather than struggle against the system all the time. Another thing you should look for is the positive side of things instead of the negative. I have already given you several examples, and there are many, many more; how, given the situation, by changing the way I looked at it, I converted what was apparently a defect to an asset. I'll give you another example. I am an egotistical person; there is no doubt about it. I knew that most people who took a sabbatical to write a book, didn't finish it on time. So before I left, I told all my friends that when I come back, that book was going to be done! Yes, I would have it done - I'd have been ashamed to come back without it! I used my ego to make myself behave the way I wanted to. I bragged about something so I'd have to perform. I found out many times, like a cornered rat in a real trap, I was surprisingly capable. I have found that it paid to say, ``Oh yes, I'll get the answer for you Tuesday,'' not having any idea how to do it. By Sunday night I was really hard thinking on how I was going to deliver by Tuesday. I often put my pride on the line and sometimes I failed, but as I said, like a cornered rat I'm surprised how often I did a good job. I think you need to learn to use yourself. I think you need to know how to convert a situation from one view to another which would increase the chance of success. Now self-delusion in humans is very, very common. There are enumerable ways of you changing a thing and kidding yourself and making it look some other way. When you ask, ``Why didn't you do such and such,'' the person has a thousand alibis. If you look at the history of science, usually these days there are 10 people right there ready, and we pay off for the person who is there first. The other nine fellows say, ``Well, I had the idea but I didn't do it and so on and so on.'' There are so many alibis. Why weren't you first? Why didn't you do it right? Don't try an alibi. Don't try and kid yourself. You can tell other people all the alibis you want. I don't mind. But to yourself try to be honest. If you really want to be a first-class scientist you need to know yourself, your weaknesses, your strengths, and your bad faults, like my egotism. How can you convert a fault to an asset? How can you convert a situation where you haven't got enough manpower to move into a direction when that's exactly what you need to do? I say again that I have seen, as I studied the history, the successful scientist changed the viewpoint and what was a defect became an asset. In summary, I claim that some of the reasons why so many people who have greatness within their grasp don't succeed are: they don't work on important problems, they don't become emotionally involved, they don't try and change what is difficult to some other situation which is easily done but is still important, and they keep giving themselves alibis why they don't. They keep saying that it is a matter of luck. I've told you how easy it is; furthermore I've told you how to reform. Therefore, go forth and become great scientists! Questions and Answers A. G. Chynoweth: Well that was 50 minutes of concentrated wisdom and observations accumulated over a fantastic career; I lost track of all the observations that were striking home. Some of them are very very timely. One was the plea for more computer capacity; I was hearing nothing but that this morning from several people, over and over again. So that was right on the mark today even though here we are 20 - 30 years after when you were making similar remarks, Dick. I can think of all sorts of lessons that all of us can draw from your talk. And for one, as I walk around the halls in the future I hope I won't see as many closed doors in Bellcore. That was one observation I thought was very intriguing. Thank you very, very much indeed Dick; that was a wonderful recollection. I'll now open it up for questions. I'm sure there are many people who would like to take up on some of the points that Dick was making. Hamming: First let me respond to Alan Chynoweth about computing. I had computing in research and for 10 years I kept telling my management, ``Get that !@#% machine out of research. We are being forced to run problems all the time. We can't do research because were too busy operating and running the computing machines.'' Finally the message got through. They were going to move computing out of research to someplace else. I was persona non grata to say the least and I was surprised that people didn't kick my shins because everybody was having their toy taken away from them. I went in to Ed David's office and said, ``Look Ed, you've got to give your researchers a machine. If you give them a great big machine, we'll be back in the same trouble we were before, so busy keeping it going we can't think. Give them the smallest machine you can because they are very able people. They will learn how to do things on a small machine instead of mass computing.'' As far as I'm concerned, that's how UNIX arose. We gave them a moderately small machine and they decided to make it do great things. They had to come up with a system to do it on. It is called UNIX! A. G. Chynoweth: I just have to pick up on that one. In our present environment, Dick, while we wrestle with some of the red tape attributed to, or required by, the regulators, there is one quote that one exasperated AVP came up with and I've used it over and over again. He growled that, ``UNIX was never a deliverable!'' Question: What about personal stress? Does that seem to make a difference? Hamming: Yes, it does. If you don't get emotionally involved, it doesn't. I had incipient ulcers most of the years that I was at Bell Labs. I have since gone off to the Naval Postgraduate School and laid back somewhat, and now my health is much better. But if you want to be a great scientist you're going to have to put up with stress. You can lead a nice life; you can be a nice guy or you can be a great scientist. But nice guys end last, is what Leo Durocher said. If you want to lead a nice happy life with a lot of recreation and everything else, you'll lead a nice life. Question: The remarks about having courage, no one could argue with; but those of us who have gray hairs or who are well established don't have to worry too much. But what I sense among the young people these days is a real concern over the risk taking in a highly competitive environment. Do you have any words of wisdom on this? Hamming: I'll quote Ed David more. Ed David was concerned about the general loss of nerve in our society. It does seem to me that we've gone through various periods. Coming out of the war, coming out of Los Alamos where we built the bomb, coming out of building the radars and so on, there came into the mathematics department, and the research area, a group of people with a lot of guts. They've just seen things done; they've just won a war which was fantastic. We had reasons for having courage and therefore we did a great deal. I can't arrange that situation to do it again. I cannot blame the present generation for not having it, but I agree with what you say; I just cannot attach blame to it. It doesn't seem to me they have the desire for greatness; they lack the courage to do it. But we had, because we were in a favorable circumstance to have it; we just came through a tremendously successful war. In the war we were looking very, very bad for a long while; it was a very desperate struggle as you well know. And our success, I think, gave us courage and self confidence; that's why you see, beginning in the late forties through the fifties, a tremendous productivity at the labs which was stimulated from the earlier times. Because many of us were earlier forced to learn other things - we were forced to learn the things we didn't want to learn, we were forced to have an open door - and then we could exploit those things we learned. It is true, and I can't do anything about it; I cannot blame the present generation either. It's just a fact. Question: Is there something management could or should do? Hamming: Management can do very little. If you want to talk about managing research, that's a totally different talk. I'd take another hour doing that. This talk is about how the individual gets very successful research done in spite of anything the management does or in spite of any other opposition. And how do you do it? Just as I observe people doing it. It's just that simple and that hard! Question: Is brainstorming a daily process? Hamming: Once that was a very popular thing, but it seems not to have paid off. For myself I find it desirable to talk to other people; but a session of brainstorming is seldom worthwhile. I do go in to strictly talk to somebody and say, ``Look, I think there has to be something here. Here's what I think I see ...'' and then begin talking back and forth. But you want to pick capable people. To use another analogy, you know the idea called the `critical mass.' If you have enough stuff you have critical mass. There is also the idea I used to call `sound absorbers'. When you get too many sound absorbers, you give out an idea and they merely say, ``Yes, yes, yes.'' What you want to do is get that critical mass in action; ``Yes, that reminds me of so and so,'' or, ``Have you thought about that or this?'' When you talk to other people, you want to get rid of those sound absorbers who are nice people but merely say, ``Oh yes,'' and to find those who will stimulate you right back. For example, you couldn't talk to John Pierce without being stimulated very quickly. There were a group of other people I used to talk with. For example there was Ed Gilbert; I used to go down to his office regularly and ask him questions and listen and come back stimulated. I picked my people carefully with whom I did or whom I didn't brainstorm because the sound absorbers are a curse. They are just nice guys; they fill the whole space and they contribute nothing except they absorb ideas and the new ideas just die away instead of echoing on. Yes, I find it necessary to talk to people. I think people with closed doors fail to do this so they fail to get their ideas sharpened, such as ``Did you ever notice something over here?'' I never knew anything about it - I can go over and look. Somebody points the way. On my visit here, I have already found several books that I must read when I get home. I talk to people and ask questions when I think they can answer me and give me clues that I do not know about. I go out and look! Question: What kind of tradeoffs did you make in allocating your time for reading and writing and actually doing research? Hamming: I believed, in my early days, that you should spend at least as much time in the polish and presentation as you did in the original research. Now at least 50% of the time must go for the presentation. It's a big, big number. Question: How much effort should go into library work? Hamming: It depends upon the field. I will say this about it. There was a fellow at Bell Labs, a very, very, smart guy. He was always in the library; he read everything. If you wanted references, you went to him and he gave you all kinds of references. But in the middle of forming these theories, I formed a proposition: there would be no effect named after him in the long run. He is now retired from Bell Labs and is an Adjunct Professor. He was very valuable; I'm not questioning that. He wrote some very good Physical Review articles; but there's no effect named after him because he read too much. If you read all the time what other people have done you will think the way they thought. If you want to think new thoughts that are different, then do what a lot of creative people do - get the problem reasonably clear and then refuse to look at any answers until you've thought the problem through carefully how you would do it, how you could slightly change the problem to be the correct one. So yes, you need to keep up. You need to keep up more to find out what the problems are than to read to find the solutions. The reading is necessary to know what is going on and what is possible. But reading to get the solutions does not seem to be the way to do great research. So I'll give you two answers. You read; but it is not the amount, it is the way you read that counts. Question: How do you get your name attached to things? Hamming: By doing great work. I'll tell you the hamming window one. I had given Tukey a hard time, quite a few times, and I got a phone call from him from Princeton to me at Murray Hill. I knew that he was writing up power spectra and he asked me if I would mind if he called a certain window a ``Hamming window.'' And I said to him, ``Come on, John; you know perfectly well I did only a small part of the work but you also did a lot.'' He said, ``Yes, Hamming, but you contributed a lot of small things; you're entitled to some credit.'' So he called it the hamming window. Now, let me go on. I had twitted John frequently about true greatness. I said true greatness is when your name is like ampere, watt, and fourier - when it's spelled with a lower case letter. That's how the hamming window came about. Question: Dick, would you care to comment on the relative effectiveness between giving talks, writing papers, and writing books? Hamming: In the short-haul, papers are very important if you want to stimulate someone tomorrow. If you want to get recognition long-haul, it seems to me writing books is more contribution because most of us need orientation. In this day of practically infinite knowledge, we need orientation to find our way. Let me tell you what infinite knowledge is. Since from the time of Newton to now, we have come close to doubling knowledge every 17 years, more or less. And we cope with that, essentially, by specialization. In the next 340 years at that rate, there will be 20 doublings, i.e. a million, and there will be a million fields of specialty for every one field now. It isn't going to happen. The present growth of knowledge will choke itself off until we get different tools. I believe that books which try to digest, coordinate, get rid of the duplication, get rid of the less fruitful methods and present the underlying ideas clearly of what we know now, will be the things the future generations will value. Public talks are necessary; private talks are necessary; written papers are necessary. But I am inclined to believe that, in the long-haul, books which leave out what's not essential are more important than books which tell you everything because you don't want to know everything. I don't want to know that much about penguins is the usual reply. You just want to know the essence. Question: You mentioned the problem of the Nobel Prize and the subsequent notoriety of what was done to some of the careers. Isn't that kind of a much more broad problem of fame? What can one do? Hamming: Some things you could do are the following. Somewhere around every seven years make a significant, if not complete, shift in your field. Thus, I shifted from numerical analysis, to hardware, to software, and so on, periodically, because you tend to use up your ideas. When you go to a new field, you have to start over as a baby. You are no longer the big mukity muk and you can start back there and you can start planting those acorns which will become the giant oaks. Shannon, I believe, ruined himself. In fact when he left Bell Labs, I said, ``That's the end of Shannon's scientific career.'' I received a lot of flak from my friends who said that Shannon was just as smart as ever. I said, ``Yes, he'll be just as smart, but that's the end of his scientific career,'' and I truly believe it was. You have to change. You get tired after a while; you use up your originality in one field. You need to get something nearby. I'm not saying that you shift from music to theoretical physics to English literature; I mean within your field you should shift areas so that you don't go stale. You couldn't get away with forcing a change every seven years, but if you could, I would require a condition for doing research, being that you will change your field of research every seven years with a reasonable definition of what it means, or at the end of 10 years, management has the right to compel you to change. I would insist on a change because I'm serious. What happens to the old fellows is that they get a technique going; they keep on using it. They were marching in that direction which was right then, but the world changes. There's the new direction; but the old fellows are still marching in their former direction. You need to get into a new field to get new viewpoints, and before you use up all the old ones. You can do something about this, but it takes effort and energy. It takes courage to say, ``Yes, I will give up my great reputation.'' For example, when error correcting codes were well launched, having these theories, I said, ``Hamming, you are going to quit reading papers in the field; you are going to ignore it completely; you are going to try and do something else other than coast on that.'' I deliberately refused to go on in that field. I wouldn't even read papers to try to force myself to have a chance to do something else. I managed myself, which is what I'm preaching in this whole talk. Knowing many of my own faults, I manage myself. I have a lot of faults, so I've got a lot of problems, i.e. a lot of possibilities of management. Question: Would you compare research and management? Hamming: If you want to be a great researcher, you won't make it being president of the company. If you want to be president of the company, that's another thing. I'm not against being president of the company. I just don't want to be. I think Ian Ross does a good job as President of Bell Labs. I'm not against it; but you have to be clear on what you want. Furthermore, when you're young, you may have picked wanting to be a great scientist, but as you live longer, you may change your mind. For instance, I went to my boss, Bode, one day and said, ``Why did you ever become department head? Why didn't you just be a good scientist?'' He said, ``Hamming, I had a vision of what mathematics should be in Bell Laboratories. And I saw if that vision was going to be realized, I had to make it happen; I had to be department head.'' When your vision of what you want to do is what you can do single-handedly, then you should pursue it. The day your vision, what you think needs to be done, is bigger than what you can do single-handedly, then you have to move toward management. And the bigger the vision is, the farther in management you have to go. If you have a vision of what the whole laboratory should be, or the whole Bell System, you have to get there to make it happen. You can't make it happen from the bottom very easily. It depends upon what goals and what desires you have. And as they change in life, you have to be prepared to change. I chose to avoid management because I preferred to do what I could do single-handedly. But that's the choice that I made, and it is biased. Each person is entitled to their choice. Keep an open mind. But when you do choose a path, for heaven's sake be aware of what you have done and the choice you have made. Don't try to do both sides. Question: How important is one's own expectation or how important is it to be in a group or surrounded by people who expect great work from you? Hamming: At Bell Labs everyone expected good work from me - it was a big help. Everybody expects you to do a good job, so you do, if you've got pride. I think it's very valuable to have first-class people around. I sought out the best people. The moment that physics table lost the best people, I left. The moment I saw that the same was true of the chemistry table, I left. I tried to go with people who had great ability so I could learn from them and who would expect great results out of me. By deliberately managing myself, I think I did much better than laissez faire. Question: You, at the outset of your talk, minimized or played down luck; but you seemed also to gloss over the circumstances that got you to Los Alamos, that got you to Chicago, that got you to Bell Laboratories. Hamming: There was some luck. On the other hand I don't know the alternate branches. Until you can say that the other branches would not have been equally or more successful, I can't say. Is it luck the particular thing you do? For example, when I met Feynman at Los Alamos, I knew he was going to get a Nobel Prize. I didn't know what for. But I knew darn well he was going to do great work. No matter what directions came up in the future, this man would do great work. And sure enough, he did do great work. It isn't that you only do a little great work at this circumstance and that was luck, there are many opportunities sooner or later. There are a whole pail full of opportunities, of which, if you're in this situation, you seize one and you're great over there instead of over here. There is an element of luck, yes and no. Luck favors a prepared mind; luck favors a prepared person. It is not guaranteed; I don't guarantee success as being absolutely certain. I'd say luck changes the odds, but there is some definite control on the part of the individual. Go forth, then, and do great work! 你和你的研究PDF版
标签: Richard
