Dean Bromley, students, and guests of Yale Engineering. Thank you
for
two great honors ... both the Sheffield Fellowship and the
opportunity to be with
you today.
The Sheffield Fellowship has come to represent a coveted
recognition in
the business world. On behalf of all the employees at
Westinghouse ... a company
with a proud 110-year engineering tradition ... I accept this
fine award.
I come today to speak about science and technology ... but also
about
politics.
It certainly seems to be a timely topic. The current political
campaign is
the first to use hi-technology -- particularly the Internet-- as
a major electoral
communications tool.
Both parties have homepages on the worldwide web that provide
citizens
a chance to download speeches, photos, and other campaign
information. CBS
has a very extensive web site, called Campaign '96, which
provides detailed
information on national and state races.
Bill Clinton is the first President to have an e-mail address.
Hillary has a
web site with her speeches.
And some enterprising fashion expert created an Internet web site
for the
First Lady's hairstyles.
My talk today will not be about such topics as frivolous as
hairstyles ... or
as transient as elections. It will be about a far more serious
... and more enduring
issue - the implications for our country and our society when
politics dominate
the objective nature of technology.
A few months ago, Dr. Frederick Seitz, a former president of the
National
Academy of Sciences, wrote a disturbing editorial in the Wall
Street Journal. He
revealed that in a report on a study of Global Warming, in which
he participated
with a number of other eminent scientists, the sponsoring United
Nations agency
had edited out 15 sections, including a key scientific finding
that there was no
compelling evidence of man-made causes of global warning. The
reason
apparently is that such a finding did not support the cause that
the UN agency
advocated. Unfortunately, today, advocacy, politics, and sound
bites seem to override
sound science, rational discourse, and clear decision-making.
The result is that technological advancement and the resulting
economic
benefits are slowed by the same paralyzing political process and
enervating debate
that has plagued our attempts to reform health care and to
improve our social
welfare programs. Progress is stalled as self-styled
"scientific experts" offer us
competing theories, and as joumalists, often too lazy to check
the facts, compete
with each other for sound bites and headlines. The result is
confusion and
deadlock.
Technology was not always so politicized. In the l950s, when I
was a
student at the Yale School of Engineering, politicians had a
healthy respect for
technology. It had helped America fight and win on World War II
battlefields.
Companies like Westinghouse which pioneered radar and the jet
engine were
encouraged to invest in technology.
The Manhattan Project brought together some of the greatest
scientific
minds of the day. They created the bomb that helped end the war,
and they
created a scientific field that brought great benefits to society
... to medicine, to
power generation.
Technology helped Japan and Europe rebuild after the war ... and
it
helped America become the leading nation in the world.
But America underwent a shock to its national confidence when the
Russians launched Sputnik in 1957, beating America into space. I
remember that
well, for I had just graduated from Yale Engineering with great
plans to join the
great American technological powerhouse. That mood changed
quickly. It was
obvious by the reaction to Sputnik of the American press,
politicians, and public
that America's standing in the world had become very entwined
with our
technological accomplishments. I believe that Sputnik marked the
point where
technology became a key factor in politics, which ultimately led
to technology
becoming politicized.
Do you remember the "missile gap" debate? The
commitment to overtake
the Russians in space technology -- and to be the first to put a
man on the moon --
became an important political rallying cry for JFK and the
Democrats in replacing
a popular and strong Republican Admnistration in 1960. And it was
a
commitment that the American scientific community -- and the
Apollo Program -
was able to fulfill by the end of the decade. This grandiose
project led to some
interesting commercial spinoffs - but was really one of the major
commitments of
what seemed to be an infinitely growing pool of money for
governments to spend.
Unfortunately, JFK and his Secretary of Defense -- Robert
McNamara --
came to rely too much on technology to solve a different
international political
problem -- Communist expansion in far away Vietnam. McNarnara
turned to his
Pentagon systems analysts -- called the Whiz Kids -- to devise a
strategy to beat
the Viet Cong. Over the years, as an isolated conflict grew into
a major war ... it
came down to American military technology (delivered from the
air) against a
Communist political insurgency (on the ground). America and her
technology
lost in Vietnam ... not because the technology was faulty, but
because the political
realities didn't allow the administration to back up on the
ground.
Ironically, one of our most politically astute Presidents -
Ronald Reagan -- applied technology most effectively to a
geo-political problem.
He waned to be known as the President who ended the dependence on
nuclear
weapons and the terrifying strategy of mutual assured destruction
-- appropriately
called MAD. So President Reagan committed the nation to build a
defensive
shield against nuclear weapons. It was a controversial
proposition .. many
scientists said it couldn't be done and the media called it Star
Wars ... but some of
our country's best engineers began working on the nuclear shield.
Today -- 12 years later -- they are still developing technologies
for a
Strategic Defense that may no longer be necessary ... because the
Cold War has
ended and nuclear weapons are being destroyed by Russia and the
U.S. But
historians say that one important factor leading to Russia's
decision to cooperate
with the U.S. on arms control was Reagan's commitment of American
technology
to Star Wars, and their own perceived inability to compete with
us on
microelectronics and computer technology. So, ironically, the
threat to use
technology in a case where it still has not been proven to be
feasible, helped to
bring about a political solution to one of the most terrible
problems faced by
mankind.
As we meet here today, we see in the Middle East another example
of the
interaction of politics and technology for military objectives.
In Iraq we are
using hi-tech weapons -- stealth fighters, laser-guided cruise
missiles, and smart
bombs -- to convince Saddam to adhere to international law.
Hi-tech weapons
worked pretty well in 1991, but will they succeed in 1996? The
big difference is
that they were applied earlier along with a political solution --
an international
coalition of ground forces backed up by UN resolutions. As
President Clinton
and his team try to marshall allied support today, they must be
aware of the lesson
of Vietnam -- that technology alone cannot win a military
victory. The risk is
that U.S. political realities make the technology threat
attractive - but not
necessarily effective.
I've been speaking about examples where technology has been used
--
successfully or badly -- to affect politics. Exarnples such as
the Apollo Moon
program, McNamara's Whiz Kids, Star Wars, and hi-tech warfare in
the Middle
East demonstrated to political scientists the power and
limitations of technology.
But let's shift now to how political realities shape technology.
For in
coming years it will be increasingly important to the graduates
of Yale
Engineering to understand how political realities - whether at
the national level or
in the workplace - can adversely affect both scientific programs
and your own
careers.
I first learned about the connection between politics and
technology the
hard way. Fresh out of Yale Engineering and Princeton Graduate
School, I found
myself in the Navy working for Admiral Rickover, who is known as
the Father of
the Nuclear Navy. He was the toughest boss I've ever had, but he
had to be tough
to accomplish what he did. He built America's nuclear submarine
fleet that
played a major role in preserving the balance of power throughout
the Cold War.
He prevailed over a Russia that was armed to the teeth with very
large missiles ....
and, perhaps even more daunting, over a Navy establishment that
had little
interest in spending money on submarines instead of battleships
and aircraft
carriers.
Admiral Rickover succeeded not because he was a great engineer --
which
he was -- but because he understood how to use politics to
capitalize on
engineering achievements.
Rickover knew which Congressmen held the Navy's purse strings,
and he
knew which arguments moved each of them. He played the President
off against
Congress, and the House Armed Services Comrnittee off against the
Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy.
The legacy of Rickover today is a nuclear fleet that has sailed
100 million
miles without an accident ... and that has helped to preserve the
peace during one
of the most dangerous periods in our nation's history.
Everyone who served with the Admiral has a favorite Rickover
story, this
is mine. In the late l950's, Rickover's group (Naval Reactors)
was housed in a
World War II temporary building by the reflecting pool in
Washington. Admiral
Robinson's Special Project group (the Polaris missile
development) were in the
adjoining temporary building.
Robinson's people had demonstrated the technology of controlling
a solid
fuel rocket and asked the Navy to build them a special submarine.
The CNO asked
the Bureau of Ships, "How long?" and they said 7-1/2
years. Robinson walked next
door and asked Rickover for his advice. The Admiral asked for the
plans of a sub
being built in Groton, and together he and Robinson sketched out
the missile
compartment dimensions.
The hull of this sub was cut and the sections pulled some 120'
apart - and
then the engineers designed and built the George Washington (and
next door the
Robert E. Lee) on the fly. Two and 1/2 years later, the first
submarine launched
missile flew down the Atlantic Range. It's a great story and it
also demonstrates
how important it is to learn to beat the system.
As you know, Westinghouse is a leader in the power generation and
nuclear industries. Today the largest market for that industry is
in China. During the
next decade, China will be building an electric power
infrastructure that will dwarf
what the U. S. has built over the past 50 years.
For most leaders of China's power industry, Westinghouse is the
company
of choice to build those power plants. We helped the Chinese
create their power
industry ... over the past 40 years we trained hundreds of
Chinese engineers ...
and today's industry leaders and engineers in China have a
tremendous
confidence in Westinghouse and in our technology.
Yet, current politics threaten to undermine that relationship ...
to
encourage the Chinese to ship their business to European
companies like Siemens
and ABB ... companies that will inherit the huge Chinese power
market by
default because of political obstacles faced by American
companies like
Westinghouse and GE.
What puts American companies at a disadvantage in doing business
with
China are the various sanctions and obstacles imposed by the U.S.
government on
trade with China. They are based on human rights concerns,
technology transfer
regulations, and a host of political issues. The processes within
the U.S. and
Chinese governments for addressing those issues are slow and
often bureaucratic.
So it becomes necessary for American businessmen to facilitate a
more productive
dialogue.
For me, it means participating on the President's Export Councils
to help
our government strengthen our trade regulations to encourage
exports. It means
staying in constant communications with the Chinese Ambassador in
Washington
and the U.S. Ambassador in Beijing to help them understand the
impact of
political decisions on our current commercial and technological
projects in China.
It means calling the White House as I had to do several months
ago when political
inertia was about to cause cancellation of a major project. And
when I visit
China, I spend more time with political figures than with our
customers there.
In our other major business-broadcasting -- politics also play an
important role. In fact, for the broadcasting industry, politics
are the major
obstacle to the long overdue move to digital technology. Let me
explain.
As you know, we are well into the Digital Age -- PC's,
telephones, audio
recordings, video games ... all our information, communcations
and
entertainment products ... except broadcast TV.
And that will put the TV networks at a great technological and
competitive
disadvantage. At a time when cable and satellite TV -- both
capable of digital
transmission -- are growing, the broadcast networks must "go
digital" to match
their quality and other benefits.
Digital TV technology - and its ultimate product high definition
TV or
HDTV - has been exhaustively tested and the final design standard
recommended
to the Federal Communications Commission. What's stopping CBS,
ABC, and
NBC? Politics!
In order to broadcast digital TV, the networks need new
frequencies to
simulcast analog and digital as we did in the transition to color
in 1962. Before
the FCC provides those frequencies, various agencies of the U.S.
government are
presenting different -- and difficult -- conditions and obstacles
for transferring
them to the networks.
Some politicians want to auction the frequencies for billions of
dollars,
despite the fact that no economic model exists to value broadcast
frequencies ...
and despite the fact they would be breaking the original compact
between the
government and broadcasters. That compact stated that the
government would
provide frequencies free in return for a commitment by
broadcasters to offer their
programming free to all Americans and to meet various other
public service
requirements. Paying the government for frequencies could deny
Americans
access to free TV.
Other politicians want to pressure broadcasters to accept new
regulations,
restrictions, and requirements in return for use of the
frequencies. Those proposals
range from mandated hours of educational programs to free airtime
for political
candidates. All are political paybacks for necessary
technological improvements.
What's even more frustrating are the competing political agendas.
Satisfying the preferred payback of the White House irritates
certain members of
Congress, and vice versa.
The technology community often aggravates the problem with its
own
version of politics ... which is usually based on standards and
specifications. For
example, the current move to HDTV is being complicated by a
disagreement over
the appropriate video format for the new advanced TV. The
television industry,
which has been testing various approaches for years, now finds
that its
recommended approach is being opposed by some influential members
of the
computer industry who would prefer a different video format.
Despite the reality
that nobody will want to watch a sporting event on a PC when they
can view it on
a 50" TV, Bill Gates himself is lobbying the White House not
to approve the TV
industry's request for digital frequencies unless the format will
be the one
Microsoft prefers.
The broadcast equipment and TV receiver industries are standing
by -
waiting for the adoption of the standard to commit resources to
final designs and
chip set manufacturers. We need to ensure these standards are set
for scientific
reasons - and not parochial ones.
For example, the Europeans have already agreed on a format for
their
advanced digital TV. Now they are introducing it in Latin
America. Consider
the implications for the U.S. if it continues to debate over its
own format while the
rest of the world adopts a European format. All our research and
engineering,
which has produced a far superior approach, will have no
international
application. American hardware manufacturers and software
programmers will be
limited to the U.S. market. We will have produced the
international equivalent of
a TV Betamax, just as SONY did 15 years with its VCR format that
ignored the
fact that the rest of the industry was adopting the VHS format.
A similar situation exists today in the wireless telephone
industry, where
the lines are being drawn between a primarily European
transmission format --
TDMA -- and a more sophisticated U.S. format -- CDMA. The
Europeans are
ready ... the Americans are still improving theirs.
The irony is that the U.S. strength technologically -- a free
enterprise
system that encourages political debate and open competition for
the best
tecnnology -- is also our political weakness when it comes to
setting standards.
Because the technology of our foreign competitors is often more
likely to be
directed by government imposed standards, the technology may not
be as
sophisticated, but the standards are set and agreed to much
earlier. And often
those doing the standard-setting are motivated by political or
nationalistic
interests. It's an interesting tension that I believe will
continue to face scientists
and engineers working in the international arena.
I am reminded of an example of national experience dictating
international
standards in my own field of chemical engineerng. For decades the
physical
reference temperature in chemical experiments was about 15
degrees Centigrade,
-- 59 degrees Fahrenheit -- the ambient temperature in the chilly
Cavendish Labs
in Cambridge, England. When the center of gravity of
international chemical
research shifted to the U.S., the physical reference temperature
rose to about 72
degrees, the temperature in our centrally-heated laboratories in
the U.S.
If the United States is to retain its lead in science ... and if
Sterling Labs
here at Yale are to stay warm ... we must face the tension
between technology and
politics.
Those of you who are preparing for careers in technology must be
prepared also for a world where politics will influence
technological decisions.
It's unfortunate but true as long as people are human. So don't
ignore that reality.
Those of us who are already in positions of responsibility today
must
become more proactive in restoring that balance, in keeping
technology from
being politicized. Rather than sally forth only when our own
businesses or
interests are threatened, we must be proactive in helping society
deal with the
critical issues and problems it faces by applying process and
principles that all
good engineers know so well ... an insistence on facts and
rational decision-
making.
[ Sheffield Fellowship ]
Send comments to the Engineering
Webmaster.
Copyright © 1996 Yale University