An observation I have often made and which doesn't cease to surprise me is that technology - and more generally, even all of natural science - in a certain sense doesn't seem to be fully accepted as part of human "culture", whatever definition should be assigned to this concept. While the economical and practical importance of technological achievements is generally recognized and appreciated, and while it is generally recognized that these achievements are based on progress in natural science, still it appears that in the view of many, natural science and technological principles do not belong to those things an educated person is supposed to be knowledgeable about. It is generally expected that an educated person should be in possession of a reasonable knowledge about, say, economic theory. It is also expected that he should be oriented about certain historical facts and that he should be able to distinguish a Borgogne from a Bordeaux. But it is usually not expected that he should know much about technology, except, of course, if this is part of his profession. If I tell somebody that I am working in Telecommunication the usual reaction is that I am supposed to be able to repair a TV set (which for sure I am not). If I try to explain that I am doing research in Algebraic coding theory the normal reaction is that this must be something that is impossible for an ordinary man to understand. Moreover, the last statement is usually made in a voice that leaves no room for misunderstanding: it is not only impossible to understand, it is also absolutely unnecessary. Why is this so?
Of course I do not claim that this attitude is universal. Of course there are lots of examples of people with a true and honest interest in technology, even outside the group of professional engineers, and of course there are certain areas of natural science which are subject to a genuine interest among laymen. In particular this is true for astronomy and certain aspects of particle physics. But in general, I think, it is fair to say that while literature and history, say, are viewed as natural parts of all-round education, information theory and coding are not. Why is this so?
It might be claimed that literature and history help us to better understand our surrounding world, and that a basic knowledge in these disciplines is indispensable for anyone seeking an interpretation of his daily experiences. This is true, but it certainly holds for technology in general as well. In fact, I would dare to claim that this is true even for a highly specialized area like information theory. Actually, if any features should be singled out as characteristics of our current society one of those would certainly be its reliance and dependence on technology.
Taking into account the facts that telecommunication is a key technology in modern society and that information theory is the theoretical basis for it, wouldn't it be natural that information theory should be one of those areas where every man and woman should take a pride of being in possess of a certain basic knowledge?
I think we can all be proud of the role academic research in information theory has played and is playing in the rapid development of information technology. Still, I sometimes feel that there is a danger that these activities are being pushed a little bit too far in the direction of immediate practical utility. There is a slight tendency that we forget about another important aspect of academic research, namely that of producing knowledge just for its own sake.
I am not ready to speculate too much about these matters. There are certainly many different views around, and it would be very difficult to determine which one of those is more adequate. Maybe my concerns are exaggerated. But at least it seems to me that while we have been very successful in developing new ideas and useful results, we have been much less successful in bringing out these ideas and views to a broader audience outside the group of professional experts. If so, this is regrettable and something we should try to change.
It is often claimed that modern science is too complicated to be properly explained to laymen. I refuse to accept that view. Of course it is not possible to describe all details, of course much of the mathematical framework must be left out. But conveying a general view of the fundamental ideas and of some of the basic results should always be possible. It is not easy, it is a real challenge, but it is certainly possible.
During this jubilee year, let us join forces in this respect and try to bring out a little bit of information theory also to a broader public. Bothinformation theory and the public deserve this to be done.