
A 500-Year-Long Science Experiment - longdefeat
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/500-year-long-science-experiment/581155/
======
daveguy
The article is about an experiment to periodically reconstitute two species of
bacteria for the next 500 years. The instructions for the experiment are
stored on a USB disk and on paper. Talking about how to keep the instructions
up to date the article states:

"No strategy is likely to be completely foolproof 500 years later. So the team
asks that researchers at each 25-year time point copy the instructions so that
they remain linguistically and technologically up to date."

Seems like - if they also keep each version from today through 500 years -
this may be almost as interesting as the bacteria longevity itself. Seems like
this would be an interesting experiment in itself.

~~~
veddox
> Seems like this would be an interesting experiment in itself.

And one we have already carried out many thousands of times. Just ask a
classicist or a medieval historian ;-)

~~~
daveguy
I see your point, but I was talking about a controlled experiment with
specific changes to a specific text at short defined intervals. The texts that
historians study -- are they so frequently updated and such a well defined
piece of text for a specific purpose?

Maybe some are, but from what I understand new editions are much more
haphazard (there isn't a specific simple goal) and old editions are often
lost. I wasn't aware of a specific long term language experiment specifically
designed to keep revisions over a long term, but then I'm definitely not a
historian.

Just a thought.

~~~
elliekelly
> I wasn't aware of a specific long term language experiment specifically
> designed to keep revisions over a long term

It doesn't even come close to ticking all of the boxes you've mentioned but
perhaps the bible is the closest thing to what you've described?

~~~
daveguy
Agreed 100%, the bible is by far the closest that I can think of too. One lack
there is there are usually multiple translations to a single language, but
updates within language (eg KJV to New International) doesn't come along
nearly as often as that initial "authoritative" translation.

As singularity2001 said, from a linguist perspective it's probably the most
valuable document in the world, regardless of content.

------
gumby
This reminds me of the 639-year-long piece being played in a German church
(Cage’s “As slow as Possible”:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Slow_as_Possible](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Slow_as_Possible)
). Religious and educational institutions are likely the only ones with such
longevity & continuity (not surprisingly they’ve been intertwined in several
cultures for millennia)

~~~
shezi
There are various companies and institutions that have been around for more
than 500 years, in various fields. Also schools and research institutions.
Wikipedia has a list:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_institutions_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_institutions_in_continuous_operation)

Most of the universities I can see on that list are not religiously
affiliated.

I think that in our quick-pace life where old technologies are 20 years old,
we sometimes forget that the world is an old place.

~~~
gumby
It’s all one of perspective.

In the case of the older educational institutions (e.g. King’s school,
Bologna), the dividing lines between church and state were messy and
overlapping and even now if they are not religiously affiliated their roots
may lie there. My high school is “merely” 350+ years old (predates Newton) and
started out with a curriculum that was mostly bible and classics although it
would be considered unaffiliated today.

I used the two words longevity and continuity because something can be old but
have transformed unrecognizably, or close thereto (e.g. while amcountry may be
ancient, the monarchies at its head can change radically. Likewise even some
ancient commercial enterprises).

------
emptybits
Designing for time scales that dwarf the designers' lifetimes is fascinating.
Another one is The 10,000 Year Clock by The Long Now Foundation.[1]

A huge clock is being built into a mountain owned by Jeff Bezos that will keep
time for 10,000 years with minimal maintenance.

[1] [http://longnow.org/clock/](http://longnow.org/clock/)

~~~
pontifier
As I get older I am getting increasingly annoyed by anything that requires me
to keep up with some sort of schedule or it falls apart. I particularly loathe
monthly events (especially bills and subscriptions), and even yearly tasks
seem like they are coming faster and faster.

I'm starting to wish everything would be designed with unattended 10,000 year
time scales in mind.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Totally agreed.

Sci-fi books and shows often feature a trope of the protagonists unearthing
some ancient alien/precursor tech that's many thousands of years old, and
still in working condition[0]. Ever since encountering this theme, I too find
myself wishing tech was built for longevity. Wouldn't it be cool if in far
future, my great-grandkids find some piece of tech I was using, and it would
still be working?

Related is my hatred for planned obsolescence and related business moves -
often justified by saying that good engineering means minimizing costs, and
thus designing for "just right" longevity; somehow this "just right" lifespan
always ends up being perfect for generating recurring revenue for the
manufacturer. Totally by coincidence.

\--

[0] - See e.g. StarGate series, which deals with this a lot - from the
stargate network itself to various other ancient doodads they find and
repurpose or reverse-engineer.

~~~
kbenson
> Wouldn't it be cool if in far future, my great-grandkids find some piece of
> tech I was using, and it would still be working?

We have this, it's just relegated to the _extremely_ expensive or extremely
simple. Basically, metal items without too many fine parts. Old swords and
knives might last for a few hundred years in a good environment (and alloys
might help? That's a technology of itself), and gold lasts quite a long time,
but is limited in which items it's appropriate to use for.

It's not impossible to believe that my great grandkids might use my favorite
paring knife. It's also not all that special sounding, since we've had that
for centuries, so it doesn't seem all that amazing. I imagine there was some
point in history it did though.

------
tw1010
Linguistically updating the instructions every 25 years seems a little
unnecessary. We have plenty of documents from 1500 that scholars have little
problem parsing.

~~~
dmurray
Ideally you would want to reproduce the experiment without needing to involve
a language scholar. And even if unnecessary for linguistics, it may be useful
for the other reasons mentioned in the article (new scientific methods, new
forms of writing and archival).

------
veddox
Good article! I just have one nag: although the science behind it is good, the
history is less so...

> “Of course, for an experiment to go on like this, I’m assuming that science
> still looks somewhat like today, in the sense that universities will exist,
> there will be professors with labs, and so on,” says Lenski. “Yet if one
> looks not so far into the past, that isn’t how science was done.”

I have the highest regards for Lenski as a biologist, but this is pretty wrong
(unless he was quoted out of context). Universities have been around for the
past millennium, and have not fundamentally changed during that time. Provided
civilisation survives, I have no reason to expect they won't survive the next
500 years.

Also, the issue with how to preserve the instructions is not as big a deal as
they make out. There's plenty of paper books still legible from 500 years ago.
As long as you are careful about storing it, that shouldn't be a problem.
(Though of course, creating new copies is still prudent.)

~~~
klmr
> Universities have […] not fundamentally changed during [the past
> millennium].

I mean, that’s just completely wrong. The _scientific method itself_ isn’t
that old. The institution of Universities has been around for a thousand
years, give or take. But if you were to compare them now and then, you’d find
them mostly unrecognisable. Their aims, their organisation, their funding,
their constituents … pretty much everything changed, multiple times, over the
years. You might argue that they won’t change enough in 500 years to threaten
the experiment and you might be right (I certainly hope so) but it’s far from
obvious.

~~~
veddox
First of all, universities are not _per se_ linked to the scientific method as
we understand it nowadays. (Also, assuming that the scientific method is the
only valid way to achieve knowledge completely ignores almost everything that
is not a natural science. But that is an aside, because we're specifically
talking about universities as an institution here.)

And I still argue that universities have not changed their fundamental nature,
much as their exterior might have. Universities were founded as a _universitas
magistrorum et scholarium_ , a community of teachers and scholars
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University)),
as they still are today. Already in medieval times, their two-fold purpose was
to school the next generation of leaders and thinkers, and to provide a place
for new knowledge to be discovered. That goal has not changed in any way.

Even when you go into further detail, things haven't changed as much as you
make out. Funding continues to come from tuition fees, governments, and other
big public organisations with a stake in the outcome of the universities'
work. Their students continue to be mostly well-to-do young people aiming for
a higher career; be that administrative, educational, theological, medical,
legal, or academic. Their organisation in many places still revolves around
the core concept of a group of professors, each in charge of their own
research group (with attached students), and collectively in charge of the
whole corporation. Other things too: the teaching forms of lectures and
seminaries, the international community of university scholars, all that
hasn't really changed in the last 1000 years.

 _Book suggestion:_ James Hannam, "God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World
Laid the Foundations of Modern Science", is a good popular introduction into
scholarship in the Middle Ages, and specifically talks about the rise of the
university in this period. ([https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-
Medieval-Foundation...](https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-
Foundations-Science/dp/1848311508/))

~~~
klmr
> First of all, universities are not per se linked to the scientific method as
> we understand it nowadays.

Yes, that’s kind of my point: The introduction of the scientific method
_fundamentally_ changed research, and Universities as institutions. In fact,
this dramatic change really cannot be overstated. Your comment appears to
underestimate its importance.

> Also, assuming that the scientific method is the only valid way to achieve
> knowledge completely ignores almost everything that is not a natural
> science.

Again, kind of my point. It’s _not_ the only valid way (though it’s the best
_general_ way we’ve discovered so far, and there are reasons to assume that it
the best _possible_ general way; and, importantly, it’s not restricted to
natural science).

(I forgot to say, thanks for the book recommendation. I’ll check it out.)

~~~
veddox
> Yes, that’s kind of my point: The introduction of the scientific method
> fundamentally changed research, and Universities as institutions.

Hm, perhaps I misunderstood you? I fully agree that the rise of the scientific
method around the time of Newton "fundamentally changed research". But I don't
see how it had the same kind of impact on the university as an institution of
higher learning and research. The structure of groups of scholars doing
research (whatever method they used) didn't much change, after all - or am I
wrong? If I am wrong, could you give some details, please?

If you're interested, I reviewed the book here:
[https://terranostra.one/posts/Gods-
Philosophers.html](https://terranostra.one/posts/Gods-Philosophers.html)
(Though I didn't pay particular attention to the role of the universities in
the review).

------
ocfnash
This reminds me of pitch-drop experiments:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment)

Pitch flows _slowly_. Apparently it is so viscous that at room temperature a
suspended blob might release a drop about once a decade or so.

A few university physics departments have had experiments to watch pitch drop
running for almost a century.

~~~
veddox
Guess what? The first pitch-drop experiment is mentioned in the article... ;-)

~~~
ocfnash
I plead guilty to commenting without reading. Thank you for the gentle
reminder!

