🚀 go-pugleaf

 ___________________________________________________________________________ 
|                                                                           |
|  Computers &                                       Sunday, July 10, 1988  |
|  Society                                                      Volume   3  |
|  Digest                                                       Number  18  |
|                                                                           |
|      Editor and Publisher: Dave Taylor, Hewlett-Packard Company           |
|___________________________________________________________________________|

Contents:

 Positional Textual References ................................... Tom Benson
 Computers, Chemistry and Society ........................... William J. Joel
 FBI to investigate rogue computer program at NASA ........... Keith Petersen
 Future of Libraries and Above and Below ....................... Peter Junger
 Tablet ............................................................. (PLOCH)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

		        Positional Textual References
          Tom Benson 814-238-5277    (T3B%PSUVM.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU)

In Comp-Soc 3:17 G.R. Meyer wonders whether the above/below usage,
referring to a passage of text occuring before or after the reference,
is an artifact of computer word processing.  No, actually the usage
has been around for a long time.  In my own opinion, the usage is
klutzy and should be avoided in most writing, as should the
former/latter construction, which is stuffy and often confusing.

One of my teachers, many years ago, wondered whether the above/below
usage came from the days when libraries were filled with manuscripts
written on continuous rolls of paper.  More folklore?

Tom Benson
Penn State University

------------------------------

                        Computers, Chemistry and Society
             William J. Joel    (JZEM%MARIST.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU)

The following is a draft of a paper that was presented to the recent
American Chemical Society National meeting in Toronto, Canada, on
June 6.  Any comments or suggestions for improvement prior to
submission for publication are appreciated.

                   Computers, Chemistry and Society:
                          A Curious Triangle
                            William J. Joel
                             June 3, 1988
                               D R A F T

                               ABSTRACT
      In almost every  facet of chemistry today,   computers play an
   integral part.    Whether it's for  the routine gathering  of and
   charting of analytical data or for  the modelling of a new,  com-
   plex reaction  mechanism,  computers relieve  the chemist  of the
   repetitive, tedious jobs and afford more time for thinking of the
   chemistry.   What is not often studied is how, when chemists ben-
   efit from the use of computers, society benefits as well.  Or for
   that matter,  the way society  views advancements in chemistry as
   they relate to chemistry's use of computers.   By looking at his-
   torical aspects of both the use  of computers by chemists as well
   as the  effect of  chemical advancements  on society,   a clearer
   understanding of this curious triangle can be attained.

                             INTRODUCTION
      Chemistry is a natural science that relies upon a vast quanti-
   ty of mathematics in its daily  functions.   It is also "a scien-
   tific  discipline with  an enormous  ouput of,   and demand  for,
   data." [1]

   Computers and Chemistry

      Since chemistry has such a  heavy reliance on mathematics and,
   as a science,   handles large amounts of data,  it  would be only
   logical for  chemists to  seek the  aid of  computers to  relieve
   themselves of  much of  the tedious  parts of  their work.    The
   degree and nature of this interaction between computers and chem-
   istry has been well documented.   Computer technology is approxi-
   mately over 45 years old and the  use computers by chemists is at
   least 28 years old as evidenced,  for instance,  by the fact that
   the Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences is cur-
   rently in its 28th year of publication. [3]
      Also,  within  the chemical  field,  this  symbiosis has  been
   explored by such groups as  the American Chemical Society's Divi-
   sion of Computers in Chemistry.   These  efforts lead to the con-
   clusion that this  interaction is sufficiently understood  by the
   technical community so as not to  create either confusion or mis-
   understandings.  But what of the rest of society?
   The Other Sides of the Triangle
      This paper  is concerned with  a particular  societal triangle
   where those  in the chemical and  computer fields make up  two of
   the corners and the remainder of  society makes up the third cor-
   ner.
   
  		[ Figure 1:  The curious triangle ]
   

      As stated above,   those who are in the  chemical and computer
   fields should  well understand  the interaction  between the  two
   groups.    Yet information  does  not always  filter  out to  the
   remainder of society as easily as one might think.  This possible
   lack of  information on the part  of what will be  called society
   not only affects  its understanding of this  interaction but also
   affects  the way  in  which it  forms various  views  of the  two
   fields, both separately and in unison.   :lg.   Todya's challenge
   in communicating  scientific achievements  is making  them under-
   standable to the nonscientist.   Today's  public is more educated
   than in the past and wants to be involved in world happenings but
   does not always  understand the implications of  scientific tech-
   nology.   Effective science education  and fostering the develop-
   ment  of  rational  approaches  to  solving  scientific  problems
   instead of prejudicial  or emotional reactions are  essential  if
   people are to  understand and participate in  the advancements of
   science." [5]

      To sum up, this paper will attempt to
      explore to what extent society understands how the chem-
      ical and computer fields interact,
      show how  this level of understanding  affects society's
      views of the two fields, and
      show an historical basis for these effects.

                         EDUCATION OF SOCIETY

      There are essentially  two ways that society  obtains informa-
   tion about some segment of society.   Either members of that seg-
   ment actively educate the society or, through a variety of commu-
   nication pathways, the information is transferred.
   Blind Ignorance
      If a particular  segment of society does  not actively educate
   the rest, and there are no other communications pathways by which
   this information  can be disseminated,   then society  will never
   form either a related opinion or a viewpoint.  Blind ignorance is
   this case shields  the segment of society from  both negative and
   positive criticism.
      Unfortunately life is not lived in  a vacumn and even if those
   in the segment do not actively go about educating society,  there
   are always a  sufficient number of communication  lines available
   such that the information will spread.   The only problem here is
   that these other  communication links can filter  the information
   with the end result that selected  pieces of the initial informa-
   tion get through.

   A Little Knowledge is Dangerous

      Since blind ignorance is not possible, due to various communi-
   cation pathways,   society will always  receive some part  of the
   initial information packet.   As stated,  without any educational
   efforts by the  societal segment,  the information  gets filtered
   due to  a large  number of factors.    The expression,   a little
   knowledge is dangerous, could well apply here.

   The Whole Picture

   One might  now ask,  to  what degree  does society today  get the
   whole picture  if the societal  segment initiates  no educational
   efforts?  To answer that question one has to to compare how soci-
   ety views this segment's activities with how those in the segment
   view the activities.   The closer these views are, the less these
   communication pathways act as filters.
      As regards society's view of compters and chemistry,  one must
   first examine these views with respect to the two fields individ-
   ually and then secondly in unison.   Also, since the chemical and
   computer fields are two of the larger techologies that exist, one
   should examine  society's view of  technology in general  and see
   what effect, if any, this has.

                        HOW THINGS HAVE CHANGED

   Society's View of Technology

      If one were  to access society's view of  technology today one
   might immediately come up with words  such as "cool" or "antagon-
   istic" or "cautious".   These types  of attitudes were not always
   the case.   At  the start of the modern  scientific era,  society
   actually viewed  scientific progress  as being  an aid  to social
   progress.   This is the opinion put forth by Leo Marx in a recent
   article. [2]
      Marx states  that at  the beginning  of the  modern scientific
   era,  most scientists held a  social view of scientific progress.
   That is,   scientific progress  should be  sought as  a means  to
   obtaining social progress, not as a end in itself.
      Marx  goes on  to state  that in  the late  18th century  this
   changed.   A technocratic view emerged  that believed that scien-
   tific progress was  justified in and of itself,   and that social
   progress  would  be  an  ineviatble  outcome  of  any  scientific
   advancements.
      Unfortunately history has taught us  that this does not always
   hold true.   Marx states that since  the technocratic view is not
   always valid,  society has of  late often rebelled against scien-
   tific progress as demonstrated by such  recent events such as the
   anti-nuclear and  alternative (or appropriate)   technology move-
   ments.

   The Information Explosion

      Coupled with  this disenchantment in scientific  progress,  is
   the growth in communication technology, and computers have played
   an enormous part in this growth in recent years.
      Initially  communication  was  oral.    One  person  spoke  to
   another,  and then to another,  and so on.   Just think about the
   old "telephone" game people play at parties to get a feel for how
   this can alter information.  Next came the written word: first as
   handwritten  letters from  one person  to another,   and then  as
   printed materials, that could be widely distributed.
      Electronic forms of communications come  next and include both
   radio and television.   These  mass-media communication tools can
   spread information worldwide in a matter of minutes.  Witness the
   spead with  which events such  as the Three-Mile  Island incident
   were communicated to society.
      The latest step  in this evolution of  communication technolo-
   gies  is the  introduction of  digital  forms of  correspondance.
   Electronic mail, and public bulletin boards sometimes implemented
   on nothing more than a  simple microcomputer,  have increased the
   number of pathways by which information can travel.
      It goes without saying that  this vast improvement in cummuni-
   cation technologies has not only aided society but has also aided
   the chemist.

        Chemical information has placed very demanding require-
        ments on information technology, and, at the same time,
        chemistry has benefited more  than any other discipline
        through the application of information technology. [4]

                         THE CURIOUS TRIANGLE

      This all leads, then, back to the curious triangle.  Computers
   have helped chemists to do their jobs faster, and more efficient-
   ly,  but at the same time have flooded them with more information
   than they can digest.  It is  hoped,  though,  that computers can
   also act as a means to  eleviate some of this information deluge.
   [1]
      At the same time,  there has been an information explosion for
   society as well.   This too has been  enhanced by the use of com-
   puter technology.
      Computers have increased the  productivity of chemists.   This
   has led  to an increase  in the  rate of generating  new chemical
   data,  as well as an increase in the rate of scientific progress.
   As communication  pathways are  more numerous  and faster  today,
   society is afforded with an exponentially larger amount of scien-
   tific,  chemical,  data.   Society is also more disenchanted with
   science in general,  and this  increase of scientific information
   could afford it more fuel for its disillusionment.
      Society is  also more  vocal today.    The same  communication
   tools that increase the  disemmination of scientific information,
   also aids society in having its voices heard.  These messages are
   often directed at  chemists and they are thus  forced to respond.
   The social pressure created by this triangle are that great.

                              CONCLUSIONS

      The same computer technology that  is aiding chemists in their
   work today is also helping  scientific information reach the rest
   of society.   In turn, these new computer/communication capabili-
   ties are  allowing society  to put real  pressure on  chemists to
   account for  themselves.   The mere  existence of so  many active
   environmental groups backs this up.
      One interesting new development that has  yet to make its full
   impact  felt is  the emerging  field  of artifical  intelligence.
   Alreay society  is leary of having  a computer think  for itself.
   As chemists take  advantage of these expert systems,   it will be
   interesting to see how this affects society's view of chemistry.

                              REFERENCES

   1.   Luckenbach, R.; "The Free Flow of Information: A Utopia?
        Ways To Improve Scientific and Technological Information and
        Its International Exchange"; J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci.
        1988, 28, 94-99.
   2.   Marx, L.; "Does Improved Technology Mean Progress?"; Tech.
        Rev. Jan., 1987, 90(1), 32-41+.
   3.   Skolnik, H.; "The Journal of Chemical Information and Com-
        puter Scientists: A 25-Year Perspective"; J. Chem. Inf. Com-
        put. Sci. 1985, 25, 137-140.
   4.   Wigington, R.L.; "Evolution of Information Technology and
        Its Impact on Chemical Information"; J. Chem. Inf. Comput.
        Sci. 1987, 27, 51-55.
   5.   Zaye, D.F.; Metanomski, W. V.; "Scientific Communication
        Pathways:  An Overview and Introduction to a Symposium"; J.
        Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1986, 26, 43-44.

                             BIBLIOGRAPHY

   1.   Bowman, C.M.; Nosal, J.A.; Rogers, A.E.; "Effect of New
        Technology on Information Transfer in the 1990s"; J. Chem.
        Inf. Comput. Sci. 1987, 27, 147-151.
   2.   Cornish, E.; "The Great Transformation (editorial)"; The
        Futurist" Mar/Apr 1987, 21(2), 2 + 58.
   3.   Hamburg, D.A.; "Science and Technology in a World Trans-
        formed"; Science 1984, 224, 943-946.

------------------------------

               FBI to investigate rogue computer program at NASA
                     Keith Petersen    (W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA)

FBI TO INVESTIGATE ROGUE COMPUTER PROGRAM AT NASA

NEW YORK (JULY 4) UPI - NASA officials have called on the FBI to
investigate a rogue computer program that has destroyed information
stored on its personal computers and those of several other government
agencies, The New York Times reported today.

The program was designed to sabotage computer programs at Electronic
Data Systems of Dallas, the Times said. It did little damage to the
Texas company, but wreaked havoc on thousands of personal computers
nationwide, company spokesman Bill Wright told the newspaper.

Although damage to government data was limited, NASA officials have
asked the FBI to enter the case since files were destroyed, projects
delayed and hundreds of hours spent tracking the electronic culprit at
NASA and at the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Sentencing
Commission.

It was not known how the program, which damaged files during a
five-month period beginning in January, spread from the Texas company
to networks of personal computers and whether it was deliberately
introduced at government agencies or brought in accidentally, the
Times said.

The computer program is one of at least 40, termed ''viruses,'' now
identified in the United States, computer experts said. Viruses are
designed to conceal their presence on a disk and to replicate
themselves repeatedly onto other disks and into the memory banks of
computers. The program currently being investigated is called the
scores virus, the newspaper said.

Some government officials say viruses are spread through informal
networks of government computer users who exchange publicly available
software. Viruses often lie dormant and then explode on a certain day
or on contact with a specific computer program. They can erase entire
disks, such as happened with a one word virus that flashed the word
''Gotcha!''

------------------------------

                     Future of Libraries and Above and Below
              Peter Junger    (JUNGER%CWRU.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU)

Although the local suburban public library may well disappear for lack
of users, I cannot imagine that research libraries will disappear.  I do
not see how it could be economically possible for all the data that is
available--and sometimes needed--to be converted to electronically
readable media.  For example, I once was involved in an unfair
competition suit involving the fingernail clipper industry and went to
the New York public library to look for old pictures of fingernail
clippers.  I found a great publication called _Messer und Schere_
(Knives and Scissors) which was a trade paper of the Solingen steel
industry.  The issues were all bound together between sheets of
cardboard held together with string.  I imagine that I am the only
person who ever looked at them, but they were useful to me.  The
librarians were horrified when I told them that the issues published
during the second World War were missing -- I imagine that they have 
replaced them by now.

        I just don't see how that sort of information can ever be
available on a commercial data base.

        As to the use of "above" and "below," those terms afflicted some
types of scholarly writing long before word processors were invented.
Legal academics used them long before 1955 when I went to law school.
Some of us still use them.  We also use their Latin equivalents for
cross references in footnotes.  Below you will find two examples
taken from the "Blue Book", A Uniform System of Citation (14th ed.)
21:

        _See infra_ p. 50 & note 100.

        _See supra_ text accompanying notes 305-07.

Similar examples could be found in earlier editions of the Blue Book.
The Uniform System has been incorporated into a computer program which
purports to spot errors in one's citation forms.  A know one or two
people who actually use the computerized version and several more
who like to produce text that it can't handle.  The latter have the
easier time of it.

------------------------------

                                    Tablet
                         PLOCH    (PLOCH@utkvx1.utk.edu)

About TABLET

Two social issues arise in the projected use of TABLET: the nature of human
interaction and the content of education.

TABLET becomes the student's most important companion. All study activities
are done in isolation with human interaction mediated by TABLET. In a social
situation with strangers, TABLET can be instructed either to probe the area
looking for "appropriate" contacts -- "appropriate" based on the limited
personal data being broadcast by other probers -- or can be instructed to be
mute indicating a desire for isolation. The end of the casual pick-up; more
important the end of the casual sparring that one uses to come to know a
stranger. "Data" broadcast by the stranger replace mannerisms, voice inflec-
tion, smiles, "zits" on the nose, etc. The future will not be this isolated.
In the year 2000 we will still be trying to read body language.

To be fair, the authors of the article I read (Academic Computing. May/June
1988 pp. 7-12,62-65) were ambivalent about this isolation. For example, they
say "Students will take their work to where other students are, instead of
taking themselves to where the classes are." (p64). Still when they focus on
the typical daily round of student and professor, neither of these is rich in
human contact. TABLETs are used in isolation. One reason for this may be that
the bulk of contemporary software is to be used in isolation. There is very
little software -- none that I have used -- that supports group interaction.
(Email and message systems don't count. Most conferencing systems are border-
line.) While TABLET is clearly a communication device, there is no indication
that it will support group activity.

The lectures are done in "real" time, else they couldn't be interrupted for
questions. About 30% of the students show up for the professor's lecture. I
imagine many others are in small groups with friends because learning involves
conversations with colleagues -- if for no other reason than to confirm
insight. Whether one talks of an academic community or a group of workers
(e.g. Kidder, Birth of a New Machine or Zuboff, In the Age of the Smart
Machine), learning occurs in dynamic interaction with others.

The student does a chemistry experiment on TABLET -- but the experiment is
simulated. Is it appropriate or wise to do all chemistry -- and by inference
all science and engineering -- by simulation. Weizenbaum (Computer Power and
Human Reason) argues that the drive toward simulation of experience is unwise.
We need to know that nature can be recalcitrant; that life in "real" time is
not as readily manipulated as life on the screen. There is a point to chemis-
try experiments; they verify theory. Without experiments, chemistry is like
medieval theology -- a fine logical structure but rather detached from common
experience. Note well that when the professor goes home to work on his car,
TABLET is used to diagnose the trouble, sketch the offending parts in situ,
and as a general guide to the work. Why couldn't it act this way in a student
lab? 

Again the author's seem aware of the problem. They state,"No simulation is
better than its underlying model of the world." True! But simulations are
tested only by comparing the model with reality. The purpose of labs is to
train students to make these comparisons appropriately. Indeed, one might
argue that a general purpose of education is to help people develop and test
better models of reality.

This raises the larger issue -- not addressed by the authors of TABLET -- what
is to be taught? What can be left to the drone (TABLET) which works without
fail and what must be held in the only associational memory available, the
human brain? The problem with any program to search a data base -- even one
that searches for words in context -- is that it will miss the odd connections
that are often the beginning of insight. What program, searching data bases
for Zen Buddhism, would have made a link to motorcycle maintenance?

John Kemeny (Mathematics: How Computers Have Changed the Way I Teach. Academic
Computing May/June 1988 pp 44-45,59-61) says he has dropped most of the
routine teaching of differential and integral calculus because these subjects
-- if tractable at all -- can be better done by machines. They require the
application of rules, which machines do faster and more reliably than humans.
He has students use machines to support work in numerical integration and the
solution of quadratic forms. Uses of this sort seem more realistic for the
year 2000 than the picture in TABLET.

TABLET is a black box. The authors assume that technology is/will be avail-
able. The focus is on organizational and social aspects of life with TABLET.
They picture life and learning as isolated interactions with TABLET. Not
realistic! Not viable!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   NOTICE: For the next few weeks the information server that was
    available as info@atom is shut down while I move my home to
       another computer.  It is expected to return shortly.

Articles for submission to the digest should be sent to the editor, Dave
Taylor, at either of the following electronic addresses:

       comp-soc@hplabs.hp.com      	 ...!hplabs!comp-soc
  
This digest is published approximately weekly, the articles representing 
the views of the authors, not the Computers and Society Digest editorial
staff, Hewlett-Packard, or anyone else.

The copyright to each article is owned by the author, the copyright of
the entire digest (including format) is (C) Copyright 1988 Dave Taylor.  
Unless otherwise explicitly stated, any article can be retransmitted as 
long as an appropriate citation of the source is included.

  ___________________________________________________________________________ 
 |                                                                           |
 |                     End of Computers & Society Digest                     |
 |___________________________________________________________________________|