Some Thoughts on the Scientist as Organizer and Overorganizer

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE SCIENTIST AS ORGANIZER AND OVERORGANIZER ARNE ENGSTRÖM* The intricate problems of organizing are so wide they can be found at all levels ofadministration, including science. Supposing that overorganization exists, when is it beneficial and when is it wasteful or harmful? That is, when does organization become overorganization? The answer to this question depends upon what level of administration one considers, whether there is a shortage or a surplus of manpower, etc. When one tries to reflect on such a complex problem in science administration, the first effort, I think should be to pinpoint some parameters which it might be possible to assess and evaluate. One ofthe more important parameters is the behavior ofthe individual. Even an overorganized scientific structure is, after all, composed of individuals , however much one may doubt this after a first, superficial contact. Overorganization has been created by individuals, so, first, what kind of individuals constitute a scientific organization? Parkinson has discussed some elementary, deeply imbedded—and perhaps genetically controlled —characters or emotions which at least to a certain extent seem to be responsible for that behavior pattern which leads to empire-building. But there are some other behavior patterns peculiar to the tremendous technological development we are witnessing. I believe that this development has produced a distinctive type of individual—namely, the scientifically educated individual. This individual, Homo investigans, is closely related to Homo vulgaris, but he has a number ofparticular characteristics. Let us first consider one property ofa scientist—namely, the output of his activities as a function ofage. An outstanding scientist is characterized by the ability to create good, original ideas. Ideas may be original to the individual, however, but not to the accumulated human knowledge and * Karolinska Institutet. Stockholm 60, Sweden. 244 Arne Engström · Scientist as Organizer Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Winter 1966 "wisdom." Anyway, let us plot a curve relating the output of "original ideas" to the scientists' age, scanning really good pieces of research and checking at what ages they were conceived and developed. We find that the curve "ideas versus age" has a maximum between twenty and thirtyfive , then it declines with increasing age. The rate of slowdown shows great individual variations. But a scientist with a rapid slowdown must do something ifhe has not lost all ambitions that drove him into the field of science. Provided that he is still interested in science, and has not entirely deviated to monetary and social interests, he will take up administration , and the curve relating administrative output to agehas amaximum A=ORIGINAL CREATIVITY B=ADMINISTRATIVE ABILITY t; C= INTRIGUE CAPACITY P=A 3 O UJ > UJ rr IO 20 30 40 50 60 70 AGE YEARS Fig. i at the age ofabout fifty. Afterwards this curve declines also. Ifthe aging scientist is still interested in science, his internal pressure must be released in some way. This is accomplished by taking part in academic and other intrigues aimed at collecting power. This curve usually has its peak about five years before retirement age. It would be ofinterest to investigate in more detail the age distribution within the productive and vegetative parts of an organized scientific group; I feel confident that the results would show a strong correlation with the diagram in Figure I. With these remarks I leave the individual where he is and turn to the next higher order, the Team. It is popular to talk about research teams as something effective. A team is the scientific counterpart to, for example, a government committee. A government always feels confident that 245 when a new problem arises an appointed committee will solve the difficulties . A properly selected team can, analogously, according to some progressive organizational scientists, solve almost any problem or obstacle in its way; it is only a question ofhiring a physicist, a chemist, etc. It is certainly true that the total knowledge of at least some teams is larger than any individual can accumulate, but it is also true that the total is not simply the sum ofthe individuals' knowledge. Scientific knowledge can, according to Noltingk, perhaps be represented by intensity ofknowledge as a function ofsubject. The latter can be represented by an expanding...