EDITORIALOnce man experienced the images formed by microscopes and telescopes, his imagination led him to comprehend better himself and the world in which he lived. Modern science, as we think we know it, was born. Man's exploitation of the electromagnetic discoveries dating from the later part of the 19th century up to current times have led to new kinds of microscopes, telescopes, and other devices to produce new kinds of images. Still not content by nature, man's fertile imagination drives him to examine even the very particles used for image formation. In a recent Fermilab lecture, a theoretical physicist talked of particle accelerators as large, high energy microscopes that permit us to see better the stuff of the universe. Where does all this lead us? How does one really know that a particular interpretation is the valid one. As long as the scientist knows the rules of the game of science and maintains objectivity and scientific integrity, then images have meaning. Objectivity and scientific integrity are endangered species. If a "scientist" allows his ego, emotions, or beliefs to interfere in experimental design or data interpretation by fabricating physical laws to suit his data, then the images formed are meaningless or fraudulent. Richard Feynman tells us "the first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. ... After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that." Two articles in this issue of µ Notes relate to twists on "image" interpretation. In one (McCrone) we again, in part, learn about the shroud image and also about an "expert" who has little or no scientific training making M$ decisions in art. In another (Palenik) we learn how science can produce a non-fraudulent image. This year SMSI grants the Emile M. Chamot Award for 1999 to Leo Barish, in part, for image enhancement techniques for the SEM. Bill C. Mikuska |
|