O R G A N O N 3(1966) ENSEIGNEMENT
DE L ’HISTOIRE
DES SCIENCES
Jan Szczepański (Poland)
SCIENTIFIC TEAMS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CREATIVE POWERS
I
A group of scholars invited by th e Polish A cadem y of Science and the M inistry of Advanced Education m et a t Jab łon na on M ay 21 and 22 1965. The topic of th e conference concerned organization and lead er ship of scientific team s from the point of view of achieving m axim um efficiency in dealing w ith scientific problem s, w hile optim um condi tions of developing creative powers of team m em bers are assured. The discussion was based on a paper given by professor A leksander M a tejko. He presented the resu lts of research on scientific team s sponso red by th e In teru n iv ersity In stitu te for Research on A dvanced Edu cation; other papers w ere presented by Professors: Celina Bobińska, W ładysław Findeisen, K onstanty Grzybowski, Leopold Infeld, Tadeusz K otarbiński, Ignacy Małecki,* Edw ard M arczewski and A leksy W akar. The present author opened th e Symposium, in absence of Professor Ignacy Małecki. The floor w as held by 21 speakers, and the discussion often changed into heated inform al conversations and disputes. The proceedings of the Symposium w ill be published separately; th e p re sent rep o rt is only m eant to present its basic ideas, the w ays of approa ching separate problems, as w ell as a sum m ary of conclusions and new questions raised during its sessions.
II
The in terest in team w ork on scientific problem s and in all th a t follows it resu lts from changes occurring in th e m ethods of scientific research, as w ell as, from developing tendencies of scientific organiza tion. M odern science is also going through an „organizational rev o lu tio n ”, which modifies the scientific w orkshop and changes the social role of the scholar leading to the necessity of altering th e m ethods
of education of young scientists. It could be said, in short, th a t this revolution prom otes th e transition of science from the „academic” to the “industrialized” stage, if such a definition m ay be m eaningfully applied.
The scope and the q uality of changes under w ay are best illu stra ted by the following facts: the am m ount of institutions engaged in re search grows rapidly, and this is connected w ith rapid differentiation of those institutions from th e points of view of th e ir tasks, organiza tion of labour, principles of research, aims and statu s of th eir staff. In this country un iv ersity chairs, in stitu tes of th e Polish Academy of Sciences, cen tral institutes, institutes of th e separate m inistries, in du strial laboratories as w ell as other institutions also engaged in research w ork can be taken as exam ples of such differentiation. Their aims and th eir labour organization diverge, and last not least th ey have different “general attitu d es” concerning science, w h at will be sub ject to am ple discussion.
On th e other hand, a rapid grow th of th e num ber of scholars is u nder way. D uring th e academic year 1938/39 th ere w ere some 3000 professionally em ployed scientists in Poland, w hile the same figure for 1964-65 am ounted to some 55000. This is due to the expansion and differentiation of th e types of research institutions. B ut th ere is also another phenom enon, observed all over th e world, nam ely, th a t the functioning of m odern society req u ires an increasing am ount of scho lars. It is obvious, th a t this leads to a differentiation of th eir status w ithin th e institutes, and a diversity of careers and types of perso nality. The p a tte rn of a scholar, as the ideal ty p e to be achieved, is also subject to change. The role of the organizers gains im portance, since altering targ ets of research w ork req u ire increased cooperation betw een large groups, and even for th e solution of partial problem s whole teams, and not individuals, as before, m ust join their forces.
Thus the developm ent tendency is v ery clearly featured by team research, far reaching division of labour, resulting in disintegration of tasks perform ed by separate research w orkers, and also b y teams, composed of different specialists, w orking on th e solution of one pro blem. This leads to th e im portance of organizational problem s and m ethods of- organizing cooperation w ithin teams: one should consider, how to m ake the most individual qualities of the research workers, w ithout w aisting th e ir talents. Thus th e tasks of the leader of a team become different th an the ones of the head of a scientific school or the head of a trad itio nal chair, educating fu tu re scientists.
The chairs at academic schools also change their character, espe cially in technical education, w here “auxiliary enterp rises” are connec ted w ith separate chairs. Such enterprises are engaged in research on commission, and this gives them some features of business. Thus the
S cien tific T eam s and C rea tiv e P ow ers 1 5 1
m ethods of educating young scholars are also changing a t th e advan ced schools, since th e ir basic attitu d es are shaped in th e first instance by those “auxiliary en terprises” . On th e other hand, th e traditional, academic sty le of research w ork still exists, at the d ep artm en ts of h u m anities, and also at such other departm ents, w hich are not related to practical economic requirem ents. The same sty le also persists, to a certain degree, a t m any institutes of the Polish Academ y of Sciences, as w ell as at those centers in which the m en in charge are inclined tow ards th e solution of basic problem s, since having w orked out th eir own sets of hypotheses and theories th ey tend tow ards organizing schools of scientific thought.
B roadly speaking, diverging tendencies m ay be observed in scienti fic activity. On one hand, we are confronted w ith “academ ic” science, p ursued at universities and at those in stitutes w hich are concerned w ith basic problem s. The leaders of such centers tend to develop th e creative powers of th e ir pupils. Their basic aim is to organize a school, considered as a team of creative individuals w orking on th e solution of a m ore or less jo int set of problem s, w ithin th e assum ption of one theory, or one set of hypotheses. On th e other hand, we are confronted w ith institutes, subject to separate m inistries, w hich are engaged in applied research, being actually service activity for solving definite, detailed problems. In dealing w ith such questions, ad hoc team s are pu t together, the only aim of w hich is quick and expedient solution of a given technical problem — w hile the question of creating a school or developing creative individualities is never raised. T hat is why, w ithin the institu tes subject to separate m inistries or in other centers confronted w ith such problems, th ere is grow ing in terest in research m ethods useful to this kind of team s and in scientific m ethods of organizing research activities. There are no educational traditions, no traditions of academic work, and th e w ord “scientific” m eans only “technically correct, reliable, expedient”. A specific “philosophy of applied science” is originating, different from th e one w hich developed at th e end of th e 19th cen tu ry and which still is accepted now adays at th e universities. The la tte r w as explicitly discussed in th e Sym posium papers, w here science w as presented as a vocation, a service to tru th , a p u re confrontation of the mind w ith cognitive problems.
ill
The problem s raised at th e Symposium followed from those facts, or ra th e r from the anxiety, w hich they provoke. Recognizing th a t team w ork will gain im portance in th e course of developm ent of science, th e organizers w ished to have a closer look a t th e questions raised by those developm ents. The first one concerns differences betw een v a ri
ous kinds of teams, depending on th eir special field of investigation, th e in stitu tio n w ith which th ey are connected, th e personality of th e m an in charge, and the kind of tasks, w ith which they are con fronted. The Sym posium confirmed, th a t representatives of academic science attach a com pletely d ifferent m eaning to th e w ord “team ”, th an those representin g technical sciences, and especially technological institutes. The form er chiefly visualize a “scientific school”, w orking u n der the leadership of its m aster w ithin a theoretical fram ew ork w hich h e created, w hile th e la tte r m ainly have in m ind a team called
ad hoc to solve definite questions. The form er are interested in deve
loping the personality of th e ir pupils, the la tte r — in solving a given problem . The form er u nderstand their leadership of the team as a long process of education and coordination of individual endeavours, th e la tte r as division of labour and coordination of th e results of work divided betw een several specialists. For the form er m ethods of labour organization are m ainly theoretical and methodological problem s, w hile for th e latter, th e y consist in techniques of achieving expediency. The Symposium proved, th a t it is extrem ely difficult to find a common language for those two schools of thought.
The next task confronting the Symposium w as th e discussion on organisational patterns, assuring sim ultaneously the greatest possible scientific expediency, and best conditions of developm ent of creative powers. Im m ediately th e problem of selection of the m em bers of th e team , of th e ir rotation and of its d u rab ility etc., arose. F u rther, th e re is th e question of th e role played by th e leader of th e team , of his participation in the resu lts achieved and in the developm ent of creative powers. It is evident, th a t th e leader has a decisive share in th e choice of num bers of th e team , in organizing cooperation and in shap ing relations w ithin his staff. The im portance and th e role of indivi dual features of th e m em bers of the team in achieving scientific resu lts w as also discussed.
The set of problem s was vast and complex. The papers and espe cially th e one by professor M atejko, presented prelim inary results of research on a num ber of scientific institutions. O ther papers contained personal experience in m anaging scientific teams. Thus, th e first resu lts of research and personal experience had to be p u t together, in order to obtain a basis for prelim inary system atization of knowledge and for elaborating a set of concepts, w hich could organize th e ex perience gained by practical participation in, and leadership of scienti fic teams. It is obvious, th a t nobody expected com plete results. The organizers hoped, however, th a t the exchange of thoughts w ill d eter mine basic ideas, w hich in tu rn w ill help in research and in organization of personal experience, leading to problem s much more specific th a n the ones in itially defined.
S cien tific Team s and C re a tiv e P ow ers lo .‘{
IV
The paper by professor M atejko, as w ell as the results of th e discussion concerning organization of scientific team s showed how dif ficult it is to pass from facts know n from every d ay experience and intuition, to generalizations and ratio n al p attern s of thought. O ther factors determ ine th e efficiency of a team of a ty p e of a scientific school in th e traditional m eaning of the word, th a n th e ones, d eterm i ning th e efficiency of a technical team , in w hich a group of specia lists solves definite and detailed problem s. In this la st case, specializa tion of the team requires from its m em bers a num ber of skills, w hich other m em bers do not need to m aster; th e ir skills and know ledge are thus com plem entary, and the task of th e leadership consists in apply ing them efficiently. On th e other hand, a scientific school consists of a group of people fu lly developed and independent in th e ir creative powers. The principles of th e ir choice are also d ifferent. In such cen ters w here quick and efficient solution of given problem s is most im portant, other featu res are taken as criterio n of choice, nam ely: th e range of specialization, experience in cooperation w ith in “d isinte grated ” work, discipline and subordination to th e leader. In th e case of scientific school, th e choice is m ainly based on creative powers, character, love of know ledge and personal passion in dealing w ith problem s. M uch w as said on all th is d uring th e discussion. It was pointed out, th a t for th e choice of fu tu re scholars, th a t is to say, those who afte r graduation en ter th e fam ous “u niversity channel”, in order to em erge from it afte r m any years as professors, such featu res of character as honesty and intellectual thoroughness are m ore im p o rtan t th a n brightness and broad interests. This “channel”, how ever, of w hich Professor Celina Bobińska spoke so much, has th is peculiarity, th a t a candidate, who has once entered it, can not be rem oved, and since it is easy to m ake a bad choice, th e “channel” is often left by professors, who are fa r from th e ideal picture.
Thus it w as agreed upon, th a t distinction should be made betw een th e education of scientists and the education of “w orkers” of science, who all th e ir life w ork in technical team s, perform ing p artial, casual tasks, some tim e even of great practical im portance, b u t who n ever w ill educate others or form scientific schools of th eir own.
Much atten tio n w as also paid to th e problem s of stabilization and rotation w ithin scientific teams. The differences of opinion concerning the style of w ork of un iv ersity chairs and technical in stitu tes w ere also m arked in this respect. The system of rotation, resulting from educational necessities m akes it impossible to tran sfo rm chairs into highly specialized research institutions, since th e ir staff is constantly absorbed w ith individual research work, according to th e requirem ents
of law concerning academ ic degrees. R otation is impossible in a techno logical in stitu te, w here p artial specialization as w ell as experience gained in “dispersed” w ork are often a condition of success in solving given problems.
System atically assembled and elaborated m aterial in this field is not available, and th a t is w hy th e separate opinions often contra dictory w ere based on various argum ents, w hich could not be verified or solved. I t w as also impossible to determ ine respective interrelations. F irst of all, various kinds of team s of interm ediate character betw een the tw o opposed “poles” of a scientific school and of a team ad hoc m ust be classified. It is only then, th a t the tedious w ork of system a tizing know ledge gained from ev ery day experience, based on the functionning of scientific team s can be started. And it is also then, th a t one can begin organized > studies on the influence of different organization p attern s, on th e effectivenness of scientific work done by the m em bers of th e team.
v
Much atten tio n w as also draw n to th e role of th e leader of the team . In a scientific school, the personality of th e le'ader, his creative powers, h is know ledge of raising in terest and enthusiasm for work, are decisive. If th e leader has no ideas of his own, and if h e can not convince his pupils about them , in o th er words, paraphrasing a know n saying of professor H irszfeld — if he is not b u rning him self — then he w ill not light up enthusiasm in anybody. This is, however, a m argi nal case. Betw een a scientific school and a team ad hoc, th ere exists a g reat num ber of aspects of team work, in w hich the leader plays a decisive p art. In an academic team , the in terest of th e leader is focussed on th e p ersonality of its m embers. D uring discussion m any professors (Ingarden, Mine, V etulani, Gwiazdomorski, Aleksandrowicz, Jakubow ski and others), spoke in a beautiful and convincing w ay of the educative tasks of the professor supervising w ork of young scho lars. V arious types of leaders w ere also discussed; they could be clas s ifie d as follows: th e leader of a scientific school, th e leader and organizer, th e leader as a paym aster. The last one has <, the skill of raising m oney for research, and th is concentrates around him a great num ber of collaborators. Those types of leaders establish various types of institutions, ex ert pressure on th e economy, on science etc.
In various types of teams, th e leader is interested in d ifferent problems. Professors are always convinced, th a t in th e first place th e ir assistants are fu tu re scholars and academ ic teachers, and thus
S cien tific Team s and C re a tiv e P o w e rs 1 5 5
th e relation m aster — pupil lies at the base of th eir leadership. N ever theless, even at th e universities, th e position of th e leader is shifting more and m ore tow ards one of an organizer, fro m th a t of a scholar in th e trad ition al sense. On th e other “pole” , th e leader of technical team s ad hoc is in th e first instance an organizer of the activities of th e ir m em bers. He is not in terested in th e ir w ays of th in k in g and their personalities. As a m atter of fact, he could even ignore th e ir names, if he had them num bered. He is only in terested in th e ir capaci ties of solving “d isin teg rated ” problem s, th e ir knowledge of co-opera tion, of keeping the tim etable of w ork etc., since his only concern lies in th e solution of the problem . This ex trem e ty p e of leader, who is only an organizer, becomes m ore and m ore freq u en t in research centers, w hich are fa r from academic p attern s of scientific w ork. It should be emphasized th a t this tendency is increasing at advanced schools, especially at technical ones, and a t the in stitu tes of th e Polish Academy of Sciences. It becomes m ore and m ore frequent, th a t the scientific leader stands at th e head of team s composed of several de cades of people, whose w ork can be no m ore supervised according to the trad itio n al “m aster — p u pil” p attern . In such cases his tasks be come predom inantly organizational ones. One should d istin g u ish various m eanings of th e term : “organizational and m anagerial w o rk ” . The m anagem ent of a big in stitu te or of a w hole field of know ledge in m any scientific institutions is a com pletely different problem th an supervision over scientific w ork in th e stric t sense of th e w ord, th a t is to say patronage over th e young scholar, help in setting up the problem, collecting m aterial, its analysis and elaboration m u st be clearly distinguished from leading th e team and organizing its activi ties th a t is to say, from determ ining p artial tasks, coordinating sepa rate achievem ents, etc., w hile th e m anagem ent of a big in stitu te or a whole field of know ledge in m any scientific institutions is again a com pletely d ifferen t problem .
The range of decisions and th eir subject is differen t at all those levels; other features of personality and a differen t attitu d e tow ards his collaborators are req uired from the leader. In any case, th e re la tion: “m aster — p u p il” tends to lose its im portance as th e basic p rin ciple organizing m u tu al influence betw een the leader and his team . We are freq u en tly confronted w ith teams, in w hich th e leader h as no teaching activities; he only allocates tasks and coordinates w ork, con trolling the advancem ent of specialized research in which he is no b etter specialist th an his subordinates.
This im portant factor m ust also be taken into account, w hen educa tion of young scholars and leaders of scientific activities at various levels is considered.
VI
The im portance of th e in tern al tie w ithin the team , of m u tu al relations betw een its m em bers and of th e influence of those relations on the expediency in solving problems, and on the individual develop m ent of qualifications of its m em bers, w ere discussed next at the symposium. Professor M atejko presented th e results of his research in this field, w hile personal observations and experiences w ere added during th e discussion. The im portance of those relations for shaping the in tern al ties w ithin th e team was stressed, the selective influence of attractiv e problem s was shown. Such problem s open broad prospects for theory and research, th ey a ttra c t enthusiastic scholars striving tow ards discovery. Much w as said about the “atm osphere” of the team , developed by its leader and his cooperators fascinated by th e prospect of discovering an unknow n world. Some team s on th e other hand, originate from the attractiveness of a leader-paym aster, who has the ab ility of raising m oney for research and assuring good earnings to his team.
It is obvious, th a t th e problem is different in team s w orking w ithin the chairs of academic school, (depending on th eir special field of study), and those of the technical institutes. The necessity of achieving scientific degrees on th e basis of individual research does not perm it to organize team s w orking on one problem , or at least it leads to , serious difficulties in setting them up. That is w hy the ties betw een assistants of a chair are the same as those betw een m em bers of a team solving one problem in common.
Professors Zieleniewski, W akar and others presented an attem p t a t system atizing experience on th e basis of ratio n al categories, taken from a general theory of organization and leadership. This how ever indicated, th a t the w ay tow ards a th eo ry from w hich one could draw instructions for practical action is still v ery long, although such a t tem pts are them selves v ery useful and necessary. P relim in ary research and every day experience show, th a t great forces shaping motivations, am bitions and creative endeavours of th e m em bers of th e team are laten t w ithin th e field of th e ir m u tual interactions, th e game of th e ir attitudes, th e ir em otional reactions, th e ir m u tu al help and rivalry. In a research team , as in every elem entary group, the influence of th e group itself is predom inant for th e developm ent of tendencies and the in ten sity of aspirations of its m em bers. Thus it is essential to give th e leaders of such groups some suggestions how to m ake th e best use of th e creative pow ers of th e ir teams.
The role of a team is vital for every institution. Even for small team s of assistants w orking w ithin a chair, the atm osphere of co operation h as an im portant influence on th eir creative achievements.
S cien tific T eam s and C r e a tiv e P o w e rs 157
This is of much g reater im portance for big team s, in w hich personal contacts of th e leader w ith m em bers of h is team a re rare. B ut posi tive know ledge w hich could be used in activating such pow ers and w hich could help in practical decisions is v ery lim ited. One could apply h ere th e achievem ents of sociological research on sm all groups or existing, theories of social behaviour, b u t an adequate “tran slatio n ” of such general theories into the language of ev ery d ay practice is, as yet, not available. The In teru n iv ersity In stitu te of Research on A dvan ced Education is going to publish a stu d y b y professor M atejko, con taining repo rts and surveys of A nglo-Saxon literatu re in th e field, w hich could be a startin g point for fu rth e r work.
VII
The problem of education of scholars attracted m uch atten tio n during th e discussion, since it is alw ays th e basic task of advanced schools. The style and m ethods of w ork at academic chairs, th e p re vailing philosophy of science and scientific w ork, th e exam ple of pro fessors and th e ir personal beliefs, have a crucial influence on the a ttitu d es of fu tu re scientists and on th e ir ideas of scientific w ork. The trad itio nal p attern of an academic scholar is alw ays th e ideal type accepted consciously or subconsciously, according to w hich scientists are being educated. On th e other hand, in an increasing num ber of research centers, staff m em bers are needed, who w ould be able to perform “p a rtia l” tasks expediently. In a sense, one could call them “technicians” of research w ork. Such people do n o t d eterm ine inde pendently th e ir tasks and problems, th e y do not elaborate th eir own research methods, b u t th ey only perform p artial w ork w ithin the teams. The type of education which th e y obtained tells them , how ever, th a t this kind of w ork is “c o n trary ” to the only one “w o rth y ” of a scientist, th u s leading them to fru stratio n and discontent, w hich are always negative for th e ir w ork and th e ir m en tal attitudes.
Thus, th e problem has m any aspects. The first one concerns th e teaching of methodology of science and th e shaping of ideas on scien tific activity according to models, w hich are incom patible w ith m odern, “industrialized” scientific institutions, w here applied research is pre dom inant, and w here a philosophy of “applied science” prevails. Thus, th e teaching of such a m ethodology of science w hich p rim arily con cerns basic research, and w hich shapes the ideas of young scientists on th e aim of science, as w ork concerning general theories, leads to conflicts betw een th e ir ideas on science and th e ir definite tasks.
The second aspect concerns initiating young assistants in research work w ithin big groups, the leader of w hich has little tim e and fiew chances of supervising d irectly the beginners’ w ork. Professor V
etula-ni claimed, th a t th e professor should com plete a t least one study together w ith his young assistant. This, how ever, can not be done in big institutes, w here th e re is one professor per m an y decades of assis tants, or in such team s, w here th e leader is only an organizer, unable of saying anything about th e factual w ork of his staff. Thus, th e w ay of a young graduate tow ards professorship, so im p o rtan t for th e de velopm ent of his creative pow ers and for achieving practical research skills, has n ot been investigated theoretically, and also neglected in practice.
V arious aspects of th e “rotation ” of scientific w orkers w ithin chairs and institutes, as w ell as “im m anent contradictions” of this process w ere also subject to discussion. Such questions w ere raised, as: in volvem ent in individual w ork in order to obtain academic degrees, contradiction betw een such w ork and im proving teaching skills, auto m atic functioning of th e “academic channel”, w hich pushes through anybody w ho entered it tow ards a professorship, irrespective of talen ts and skills etc. On th e other hand, th e prevailing type of w ork done at research in stitu tes does not correspond to legal requirem ents con cerning doctoral dissertations and other academic degrees.
This led to ra th e r tim id proposals of basic reform s, which should involve academic schools and research in stitu tes of all kinds. Such reform s should tend tow ards a harm ony betw een actual reality and the ta cit ideals of science and of philosophy of science. But th e idea of such reform s was ra th e r tacitly la ten t in the air, since it w as th e general feeling, th a t our scientific institutions are in a state of p er m anent reform : one law chases th e other and before all executive regulations are available, th e n ex t law cancels them . Scientific in sti tutions also need some stabilizing period, and th a t is w hy basic reform w as discussed reluctan tly. In the presen t au th o r’s opinion, one basic reform every 20 y ears is b etter th a n sm all am endm ents every year.
VIII
W hat plans and blu eprin ts of fu rth e r research w ere discussed during th e Symposium? Everybody agreed, th a t it is necessary to system atize practical know ledge concerning the leadership of team s and th e ir organization, and also th a t system atic research should be m ade on how to develop scientific talen ts and how to organize teams, in order to shape correspondingly th e attitu d es and tendencies of th eir m em bers, develop th e ir talen ts and skills, and m ake them into an efficient tool of solving problem s collectively. I t is easy to m ake such claims, th e discussion showed, however, a lack of stan dard knowledge in the field. U ndoubtedly, each leader has his own “th eo ry ” and his own “m ethod” of action. His own opinion on such theories and m ethods
S cien tific T eam s and, C re a tiv e P ow ers 1 5 9
d iffers how ever from the opinion of his subordinates. C ertain ex p erien ces have also been gathered during research. F in ally it was agreed upon, th a t fu rth e r w ork on th e problem should be done according to the th ree following ways:
1) Collect the opinions of th e leaders of scientific team s, w hich describe th e ir experiences; systhem atize th em and d raw general con clusions.
2) Organize em pirical research on scientific team s of all kinds, apply experim ental m ethods in order to achieve verified know ledge on separate processes and interrelations.
3) Follow system atic w orld lite rtu re on th e subject. Those th re e w ays of fu rth e r research w ill be followed by th e In teru n iv ersity In stitu te of Research on A dvanced Education.
Research w ill have to be followed on in stitu tio ns of all existing types, in order to em brace every “b ran ch ” of scientific activity. It seems, th a t we are w itnessing not only a division of labour in scien tific research, not only a specialized d istribution of scientific discipli nes, b u t also some much m ore far reaching partition. As y e t it is impossible to determ ine it adequately, though it seems to raise an x iety since it is a division into “pure, academ ic” science and “practical, applied”, or “technological” science. If w e consider, th a t th e au th o ri ties are fascinated m ainly w ith the la tter, and th a t developm ent plans provide for th e allocation of b y far the g reater p a rt of resources aim ed a t sponsoring research to this second typ e of activity, it m ay easily be seen, th a t this could lead to a loss of balance in th e developm ent of science. On th e other hand, despite those partitions, the u n ity of science, and especially th e u n ity of both basic and applied research, are obvious for each scholar. Institu tio nal divisions, form ing all kinds of groups of in terests and various pressure groups com peting for in fluence and resources, do not have th e least influence on th e develop m en t of science as a joint set of theorem s, hypotheses and theories. Thus, in th e research ahead, those basic aspects of developm ent of scientific in stitutio n s and scientific groups, should not be lost from sight.
