1
Sir — Throughout the ages, historical documents have been carved in stone, etched in clay, written on parchment and printed on paper. Examination of traditional documents requires merely the ability to read and understand the language or code in which they were written. Saving them requires but a thoughtfully selected repository, with a security device if needed. But the term “read” has a completely different connotation when referring to a floppy disk or a computer hard drive. So, whereas the Rosetta Stone only required interpretation of the written key, today’s equivalents require all the correct operating systems and software applications. Faced with these complexities, it is all too tempting to dump records in the recycling bin. It is nothing short of terrifying to contemplate the probable magnitude of lost records as yesterday’s electronic storage devices become incompatible with today’s software applications. These problems are most alarming when considered in the context of electronic mail. Worldwide, the number of corporate mailboxes is projected to grow from 131 million in 2001 to 225 million in 2005; daily e-mail traffic is anticipated to grow from 9.7 billion pieces in 2000 to more than 35 billion in 2005. Little of this staggering volume is translated to hard copy. Even formal documents are frequently discarded by simply erasing them to avoid the tedium and expense of printing and archiving, on the erroneous assumption that previous iterations are of no value. The threat to the existence of hard-copy records of e-mail will become more acute as younger generations become less culturally and educationally attuned to their importance for the preservation of historical records. A perfect electronic world should not require hard copies of e-mail (or any other electronic document). E-technology should have addressed this problem as it evolved. But as individuals, institutions and corporations have continually ‘upgraded’, it has become more problematic to preserve e-documents because formats, servers and institutional IT policies change. The US National Archives has recently acknowledged the lack of robust e-mail archiving solutions, but has determined that long-term storage of electronic communications must be independent of these variables (see www.archives.gov/records_management). Institutional policies also negatively affect long-term retention of e-mail. With limits of hard-drive space on mail servers, institutional users are routinely faced with the requirement to cleanse mailboxes. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but a single mouse-click can destroy products of inestimable value. The ease and simplicity of e-mail has altered the fundamental psychology of communication — and of confidentiality. Most of us are oblivious to the reality that e-communication violates the confiden- tiality intrinsic to conversations: e-mail records (even deleted ones) can be sub- poenaed by courts of law. Other people’s computers can easily be used to send or receive e-mail, or to access the Internet. The potential for violations of confiden- tiality and for impersonation is all too obvious, and examples of ‘e-fraud’ abound. Even in honest use, the immediacy of e-mail breeds poor communication and can rapidly escalate conflict. The facile nature of the medium encourages a lack of sensitivity, and the false assumption that such communication is private and confidential can lead to situations such as that of the recovery of e-mails questioning the safety of the US space shuttle’s re-entry written days before the recent disaster. Electronic communication is surely here to stay. Its simplicity and enormous speed will ultimately send other modes of communication close to extinction. But IT solutions to the many problems it brings are long overdue. Most serious is the potential for the loss of records that may have immense historical value. For a start, academic (and other) institutions should require hard copies of certain categories of electronically generated information to be kept — with appropriate authentication. Errol C. Friedberg, Herbert K. Hagler, Kevin J. Land Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA correspondence NATURE | VOL 423 | 19 JUNE 2003 | www.nature.com/nature 801 How e-mail raises the spectre of a digital Dark Age Records can be wiped out by a click of the mouse or rendered unreadable by upgrades. Britannica: source of a passion for physics Sir — In his obituary of US physicist Julian Schwinger (Nature 370, 600; 1994), David S. Saxon wrote: “He once remarked that he had been reading straight through the Encyclopaedia Britannica and when he came to the letter P and to physics, that was it.” In another memorial article, Paul C. Martin and Sheldon L. Glashow wrote “Armed with the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the books and journals in nearby libraries, Schwinger set himself apart from the establishment of teachers, textbooks and assignments.” (Physics Today 48 (10), 40–46; 1995). These descriptions raised my interest in the contents of the famous 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910), which also influenced the physicist Freeman Dyson profoundly (see S. S. Schweber QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga 479; Princeton Univ. Press, 1994). After examining this edition, I found to my surprise that ‘physics’ is not an entry word. This is particularly strange as this edition was published a decade and a half after the great discoveries that marked the beginning of modern physics. In contrast, both ‘chemistry’ and ‘physiology’ are entry words, with many depictions of these two sciences. Was Schwinger’s account of his early commitment to physics perhaps either a joke or a fable? Of course, many entry words regarding the science of physics were included and embedded in different volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, so one could well believe that young Schwinger learnt physics from the entire set. Min-Liang Wong Department of Veterinary Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung 402, Taiwan Britannica: which edition inspired Schwinger? Sir — Regarding Julian Schwinger’s story of finding his subject by reading through the Encyclopaedia Britannica and stopping at ‘Physics’: an entry entitled ‘Physics’ appeared in every edition, beginning with the first in 1768, until the 8th (1852–60). In the 9th (1875–89) it was replaced with ‘Physical Sciences’ (by James Clerk Maxwell), from a paper “Remarks on the classification of the physical sciences”. ‘Physics’ as an entry title did not appear in the 11th or 12th, but it did appear in the 13th (1926), and in the modern sense, whereas previously it was an alternative name for ‘natural philosophy’ or ‘the science of nature’. The author was Robert Andrews Millikan. The 12th edition was actually the 11th with some supplementary volumes, as was the 13th. Anita Wolff Senior Editor, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 310 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60604, USA © 2003 Nature Publishing Group

Britannica: source of a passion for physics

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Britannica: source of a passion for physics

Sir — Throughout the ages, historicaldocuments have been carved in stone,etched in clay, written on parchment andprinted on paper. Examination oftraditional documents requires merely theability to read and understand the languageor code in which they were written. Savingthem requires but a thoughtfully selectedrepository, with a security device if needed.But the term “read” has a completelydifferent connotation when referring to afloppy disk or a computer hard drive. So,whereas the Rosetta Stone only requiredinterpretation of the written key, today’sequivalents require all the correct operatingsystems and software applications.

Faced with these complexities, it is all tootempting to dump records in the recyclingbin. It is nothing short of terrifying tocontemplate the probable magnitude oflost records as yesterday’s electronicstorage devices become incompatible withtoday’s software applications.

These problems are most alarmingwhen considered in the context ofelectronic mail. Worldwide, the number ofcorporate mailboxes is projected to growfrom 131 million in 2001 to 225 million in2005; daily e-mail traffic is anticipated togrow from 9.7 billion pieces in 2000 tomore than 35 billion in 2005.

Little of this staggering volume istranslated to hard copy. Even formaldocuments are frequently discarded bysimply erasing them to avoid the tediumand expense of printing and archiving, onthe erroneous assumption that previousiterations are of no value. The threat to theexistence of hard-copy records of e-mailwill become more acute as youngergenerations become less culturally andeducationally attuned to their importancefor the preservation of historical records.

A perfect electronic world should notrequire hard copies of e-mail (or any otherelectronic document). E-technologyshould have addressed this problem as itevolved. But as individuals, institutionsand corporations have continually‘upgraded’, it has become moreproblematic to preserve e-documentsbecause formats, servers and institutionalIT policies change. The US NationalArchives has recently acknowledged thelack of robust e-mail archiving solutions,but has determined that long-term storageof electronic communications must beindependent of these variables (seewww.archives.gov/records_management).

Institutional policies also negativelyaffect long-term retention of e-mail. Withlimits of hard-drive space on mail servers,

institutional users are routinely faced withthe requirement to cleanse mailboxes. Thepen may be mightier than the sword, but asingle mouse-click can destroy products ofinestimable value.

The ease and simplicity of e-mail hasaltered the fundamental psychology ofcommunication — and of confidentiality.Most of us are oblivious to the reality thate-communication violates the confiden-tiality intrinsic to conversations: e-mailrecords (even deleted ones) can be sub-poenaed by courts of law. Other people’scomputers can easily be used to send orreceive e-mail, or to access the Internet.The potential for violations of confiden-tiality and for impersonation is all tooobvious, and examples of ‘e-fraud’ abound.

Even in honest use, the immediacy of e-mail breeds poor communication andcan rapidly escalate conflict. The facilenature of the medium encourages a lack of

sensitivity, and the false assumption thatsuch communication is private andconfidential can lead to situations such asthat of the recovery of e-mails questioningthe safety of the US space shuttle’s re-entrywritten days before the recent disaster.

Electronic communication is surelyhere to stay. Its simplicity and enormousspeed will ultimately send other modes ofcommunication close to extinction. But ITsolutions to the many problems it bringsare long overdue. Most serious is thepotential for the loss of records that mayhave immense historical value. For a start,academic (and other) institutions shouldrequire hard copies of certain categories ofelectronically generated information to bekept — with appropriate authentication.Errol C. Friedberg, Herbert K. Hagler,Kevin J. LandDepartment of Pathology, University of TexasSouthwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 423 | 19 JUNE 2003 | www.nature.com/nature 801

How e-mail raises the spectre of a digital Dark AgeRecords can be wiped out by a click of the mouse or rendered unreadable by upgrades.

Britannica: source of apassion for physicsSir — In his obituary of US physicist JulianSchwinger (Nature 370, 600; 1994), DavidS. Saxon wrote: “He once remarked that hehad been reading straight through theEncyclopaedia Britannica and when he cameto the letter P and to physics, that was it.”

In another memorial article, Paul C.Martin and Sheldon L. Glashow wrote“Armed with the 11th edition of theEncyclopaedia Britannica and the booksand journals in nearby libraries, Schwingerset himself apart from the establishment ofteachers, textbooks and assignments.”(Physics Today 48 (10), 40–46; 1995).

These descriptions raised my interest inthe contents of the famous 11th edition ofthe Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910), whichalso influenced the physicist FreemanDyson profoundly (see S. S. SchweberQED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson,Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga 479;Princeton Univ. Press, 1994).

After examining this edition, I found tomy surprise that ‘physics’ is not an entryword. This is particularly strange as thisedition was published a decade and a halfafter the great discoveries that marked thebeginning of modern physics. In contrast,both ‘chemistry’ and ‘physiology’ are entrywords, with many depictions of these twosciences. Was Schwinger’s account of hisearly commitment to physics perhapseither a joke or a fable?

Of course, many entry words regarding

the science of physics were included andembedded in different volumes of theEncyclopaedia Britannica, so one couldwell believe that young Schwinger learntphysics from the entire set. Min-Liang Wong Department of Veterinary Medicine, College ofVeterinary Medicine, National Chung-HsingUniversity, Taichung 402, Taiwan

Britannica: which editioninspired Schwinger?Sir — Regarding Julian Schwinger’s storyof finding his subject by reading throughthe Encyclopaedia Britannica and stoppingat ‘Physics’: an entry entitled ‘Physics’appeared in every edition, beginning with the first in 1768, until the 8th(1852–60). In the 9th (1875–89) it wasreplaced with ‘Physical Sciences’ (by JamesClerk Maxwell), from a paper “Remarkson the classification of the physicalsciences”. ‘Physics’ as an entry title did not appear in the 11th or 12th, but it did appear in the 13th (1926), and in the modern sense, whereas previously it was an alternative name for ‘naturalphilosophy’ or ‘the science of nature’. Theauthor was Robert Andrews Millikan. The12th edition was actually the 11th with somesupplementary volumes, as was the 13th. Anita WolffSenior Editor, Encyclopaedia Britannica,310 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60604, USA

© 2003 Nature Publishing Group