In science and technology, sometimes we draw too sharp a distinction between theory and application. If you stay in the field for any length of time, then surely you have felt the mutual distrust and disdain between the two camps every now and then. But the actual reality is of course much more complex. Engineering professors do consulting for industry and often get their inspiration from the real world problems, and industrial laboratory pioneer many commercial advances and stimulates theoretical research.

I’d like to offer another view of the theory-application divide that hopefully shed additional light on it. Let me first give an example of what I have in mind. When we first designed a supersonic jet airplane, the designer(s) must be an expert in aerodynamics, thermodynamics, material science, and a host of other cutting edge sciences since we are attempting something that has not been done before. After more than half a century, much of the design knowledge for supersonic jets have been codified. And routine designs can now consult established tables, algorithm, and practices. Many more trained engineers can undertake such tasks without the necessity of being a pioneering expert in some scientific discipline. Put it another way, the first group are people using scientific principles to tackle a real world problem while the second group are applying existing knowledge to a more or less known problem. One may denote the first group as theoretical engineers or engineering scientists and the latter, practicing engineers.

 

Some thirty years ago, when I first developed the idea of perturbation analysis, I thought I solved a very important real world problem (see http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=38683) and the world should rush to its adoption. However, ten years later I realized this is not going to happen. What I have done is to say, give me a problem, I and others who understand the theory can adapt the algorithm to solve it and realize the benefit of the theory. But there do not exist even to this date an algorithm that can be used to solve most of the problem in this broad class automatically. As of 2008, there exist more than 1000 scientific papers on the subject and provide much insight and unification of subjects of operation research. But the number of people versed in the intricacy and theory of perturbation analysis is still a small number compared to the vast number of practicing engineers with B.S. or MS degree trained in operations research industrial engineering. These engineers are not in a position to utilize the advances in perturbation analysis. Just because one has solved a problem in engineering does not means its wholesale adoption by the industry. To achieve the latter, the tools and techniques must become a commodity – codified in text books and manuals, taught in standard undergraduate university courses and usable by person who may not have deep understanding of the theory behind it. Bridging this “theory and application” gap may require another huge effort or even advance in scientific principle. This provides, in my opinion, another reason for the phenomenon of 看山跑死馬- Never mistake a clear view for short distancehttp://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=28314 “How come a good idea takes so long to become commercially viable?”. Scientists who think they have invented the greatest thing need to have a realistic view of the commercial world. The often casually used phrase “ this is a exercise left for the reader” may not be the simple task in the mind of the inventor.