Chess, Art, Robots, and the Future of Science - Forbes

1 of 3

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/04/21/chess-art-robots-an...

Alex Knapp, Forbes Staff

I write about the future of science, technology, and culture.

TEC H | 4/21/2011 @ 12:00PM | 1,675 views

Chess, Art, Robots, and the

Future of Science
I believe in intuition and
inspiration. Imagination is more
important than knowledge. For
knowledge is limited, whereas
imagination embraces the entire
world, stimulating progress,
giving birth to evolution. It is,
strictly speaking, a real factor in
scientific research.
Albert Einstein
Robot Scientists and
Formalizing Knowledge
One fascinating recent
development in the realm of
experimental science is the work of
Ross King, a biologist and
computer scientist at Aberystwyth
Image via Wikipedia
University in Wales. King is
leading a team focused on
developing robot scientists robots that not only perform automated
experiments, but also use an iterative approach to use the data from one
experiment to then determine the next experiment by ruling out hypotheses.
The work has yielded interesting results so far, with the first robot built
nicknamed Adam already using its iterative learning capabilities to
develop and rule out hypotheses regarding yeast genomics. The results of
that research were published in Science.
Now to help facilitate the growth of robot scientists for routine, automated
experiment, King and his team are urging that the methods and processes of
science be formalized, to remove the ambiguities of natural language and
make it easier to reproduce experiments and build the bases of knowledge.

An ontology-based formalization makes it possible to keep an accurate track of all the result
units used for different goals, while preserving the semantics of all the experimental entities
involved in all the investigations. Therefore, it is possible to safely reuse information without
fear that the meaning of the information will subtly depend on the context in an
undocumented way. In addition, thanks to the comprehensive nature of the formalism, it is
possible to safely re-use the information without fear that important information is missing.
For example, it is possible to check if two yeast strains were grown under the same
experimental conditions (temperature, medium, etc.), and if the same methods were used to
calculate growth parameters, etc. Formalization makes it easier to compare like with like,
and decreases the chance of the introduction of systematic error into a new investigation
based on reusing information from another.

3/9/2013 11:45 PM

Chess, Art, Robots, and the Future of Science - Forbes

2 of 3

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/04/21/chess-art-robots-an...

In principle, I think this sounds like a fantastic idea, though no doubt it will
take years to practically hammer out a formal, cross-disciplinary notation.
But as automated experimentation becomes more and more common, this
type of formalization will prove to be necessary. And this is a grand thing for
a number of reasons, but chief among them is this: it will start the process of
freeing scientists from drudgery.
Liberating Scientists From Grunt Work
As I mentioned in a previous post, one of the things that kept me from a
career in science is the the constant, repetitive lab work. Dont get me wrong
I love the lab. I love seeing things happen that I havent seen before. But
the day to day grind of it gets awfully boring awfully fast. And my hat is
always off to the wonderful folks I count among my friends and
acquaintances who are able to do it without going as mad as a Lovecraft
character encountering an Eldritch Abomination.
Dr. Joseph Coolon, a genetics researcher at the University of Michigan,
concurs, The data collection phase can be really slow, time consuming and
arduous. Using robots to collect that data can free up the time to analyze the
data, and anything that speeds up data acquisition without compromising
quality is a good thing.
And its that grunt lab work that takes away from what I think is the most
important part of the scientific process, and thats the creative process. If
technology allows us to free scientists from the day to day grind by letting
robots do the bulk work of data collection, then a scientific culture can be
built thats more attuned to the big picture of analyzing data, formulating
new hypotheses, and connecting disparate ideas. In other words, scientists
can cultivate those skills that spur new thinking and innovation, rather than
worrying about whether they properly accounted for the meniscus when
pouring fluid into an Erlenmeyer flask.
Indeed, one ancillary benefit of automating science might be a rise of more
cross-disciplinary scientists, who are expert in more than one area and able
to program robots to test their hypotheses for them while they move on to
devising other experiments. That ability to work across disciplines could
lead to ideas and discoveries more quickly by virtue of scientists seeing
connections that they simply didnt have time to see before.
Advanced Chess As a Model For Science
Everyone remembers the famous chess match between Garry Kasparov and
Deep Blue, in which a computer first beat a human chess master. Fewer
people are aware of the work hes done since not in working against
computers in chess, but working with computers to produce a style of play
better than computers or humans can produce by themselves. This has
become known as Advanced Chess, and Kasparov himself has noted its
superiority in real competition:

In 2005, the online chess-playing site Playchess.com hosted what it called a freestyle chess
tournament in which anyone could compete in teams with other players or computers.
Normally, anti-cheating algorithms are employed by online sites to prevent, or at least
discourage, players from cheating with computer assistance. (I wonder if these detection
algorithms, which employ diagnostic analysis of moves and calculate probabilities, are any
less intelligent than the playing programs they detect.)
Lured by the substantial prize money, several groups of strong grandmasters working with
several computers at the same time entered the competition. At first, the results seemed
predictable. The teams of human plus machine dominated even the strongest computers.
The chess machine Hydra, which is a chess-specific supercomputer like Deep Blue, was no
match for a strong human player using a relatively weak laptop. Human strategic guidance
combined with the tactical acuity of a computer was overwhelming.

I think that a similar human-computer partnership could achieve similar

results in science. Let computers and robots handle tactics the day to

3/9/2013 11:45 PM

Chess, Art, Robots, and the Future of Science - Forbes

3 of 3

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/04/21/chess-art-robots-an...

day grind of ensuring that experiments are property set up and managed,
while humans handle the strategy interpreting data, developing
hypotheses, and making big picture connections. As Dr. Coolon notes
regarding his own research, There are some things I wouldnt have caught
that a computer might have caught, but there are some things that a
computer would have missed, like big picture things that just dont look
right.
Let the strengths of computers compensate for the weaknesses of humans,
and vice-versa, and you have a formula for more reliable results and more
creative thinking. It will lead to better science just like letting computers
focus on tactics and humans on strategy leads to better chess.
The Art of Science
Another positive aspect of using robots and computers to free humans from
the day to day drudgery of science is, I hope, an ability to re-energize the
ideal of the scientist as Renaissance Man. Thanks to advances in
information technology, its become easier for cross-disciplinary studies to
emerge, and automation of experimentation should push this ever forward,
encouraging scientists to think and analyze data from different perspectives,
particularly from an artistic one.
As Steve Martin ably dramatized in his great play Picasso at the Lapin Agile,
there is an incredible overlap between great scientific discoveries and the
arts, as well as the passion and thinking process that leads to great works in
both. Leonardo da Vinci is, of course, who most minds turn to when thinking
about Renaissance men, but the fact of the matter is that there is a great deal
of overlap to this very day. Robert Root-Bernstein recently noted in his blog
this little tidbit:

In fact, Ive just published a study that shows that almost all Nobel laureates in the sciences
are actively engaged in arts as adults. They are twenty-five times as likely as average scientist
to sing, dance, or act; seventeen times as likely to be an artist; twelve times more likely to
write poetry and literature; eight times more likely to do woodworking or some other craft;
four times as likely to be a musician; and twice as likely to be a photographer. Many connect
their art with their scientific creativity.

Again, more spare time in the day and more time devoted to be able to think
and create might help give more scientists the time to delve into the arts and
explore the connections between the two disciplines, catapulting their
creativity into even greater areas of discovery.
Im hopeful that the formalization and automation of scientific
experimentation leads to a future of science where the strengths of humans
and computers can be combined to produce greater discoveries, and where
scientists are free to stretch their creative wings into more and more areas. I
cant even fathom what discoveries and innovations might be made in a
world where scientists have more free time to unleash their imaginations,
but the prospect is exhilarating.

This article is available online at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/04/21/chess-art-robots-and-the-futureof-science/

3/9/2013 11:45 PM