History of Materials Science

Overview of History of Materials Research by Arne Hessenbruch (MIT)

In 2004, Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and I asked whether Materials Science was about to explode, in the sense of centrifugal forces overpowering its centripetal ones. In 2020, Hessenbruch revisited that question. We identified Merton Fleming's metaphor of the tetrahedron as a centripetal force. It was holding together the equal four poles of structure, properties, performance and process and was embodied in curricula, such as Sam Allen and Ned Thomas' 1999 textbook. The centripetal forces were visible in the change of session topics at the Materials Research Society (MRS).

What does it look like in 2020? The MRS sessions continue to diversify. Five years ago the MRS began to classify topics to get a conceptual grip on the approximately 50 parallel sessions at Fall Meetings. One large category is biomaterials (that had still been minor in 2004). But even MRS' classification changes from year to year. The main reason is that the MRS business model relies on the number of attendees, and hence permanence of categories is pushed aside by the desire to - putting it tendentiously - catch the latest hype wave.

Whereas such centrifugal forces continue unabated, the centripetal ones have weakened. Allen & Thomas was able to bring metals, semiconductors, and ceramics under one single conceptual framework, but it didn't address biomaterials - nor could it. And no textbook integrating bio has emerged.

Nano is now a category of its own on par with bio at the MRS meetings. Ore extracted materials, or metals I guess, are being squeezed out, much to the chagrin of older materials scientists that I have spoken to. Among the centrifugal forces I would add: the nano wave with the NBIC program as an attempt to re-organize the entire field of materials design at the molecular level, the still fashionable biomimetic wave as an environmental friendly design of materials. Both of them are related to materials by design. What about raw materials (extracted from ores)? Are there still part of Materials Sciences and Engineering?

Our 2004 conclusion is at least not refuted: materials research is the prototype of unstable disciplines characterized by a closer integration with industrial (and military I would now add) demand. How to teach foundational courses in this environment is a growing challenge.

From Hidden Utility to Heroic Machines by E. F. Spero (Department of Materials Science and Engineering, MIT)

How do scientists imagine (and possibly enable) futures through their practices of computation? How might particular tools and approaches transition from serving as hidden utilitarian elements to those that give rise to new subfields and styles of thought? This presentation takes a historical approach to the emergence of computation in macromolecular science, an interdiscipline focused on polymers that bridges physics, chemistry, and materials science and engineering. In this field today, there is a palpable enthusiasm for the power and speed of computation investing in the promise of big data to revolutionize what is possible within these disciplines. Employing tools of high-throughput simulation and new machine learning algorithms, scientists aim to close the gap between theory and experiment, and redefine what it means to create, designing new sustainable materials built with atomic precision. However, in the late 1950s when computation was yet a nascent tool, often used for verification of existing models (rather than one for creation) scientists studying the physical behavior of long chain molecules downplayed, mistrusted, or even openly disdained computational methods. Along with fellow panelists this presentation will open space for reflection on tools, methods, and imagination.

History of Materials Science Institutions by Robert P. Crease (State University of New York – Stony Brook)

An institution may be defined as a basic physical, organizational, educational, or regulatory structure needed for the operation of scientific research. Institutions are a fundamental feature of science, but tend to drop out of its history. Scientific research requires institutional networks, and the character of these networks depends on scientific field and national context. It is impossible to understand an institution apart from its network.

The networks of materials science research institutions have a markedly different character from the networks of other kinds of science. Materials science research can be thought of as advancing through a series of “performances” that are possible thanks to the intersection of five different kinds of institutions. Laboratories are the specially equipped physical “stages” where researchers can mount the performances; educational institutions, such as university departments, train researchers to carry out such performances; professional institutions tend to the organization and professionalization of the researchers and their communities; governmental organizations fund the research; and communicative institutions disseminate the results. The contribution consists of surveys of these five types of institutions in materials science and how their networks vary by region.