I am no longer doing MCA (per se) because I took a job working on the
modeling of biological systesm where I could find one.
I think that Bob is right in that if MCA was shown to solve a big
problem, then it would have 'made it.'
To the extent that you start with important questions, and then note
that MCA is just the tool to solve them, it will be successful.
The danger for people doing active research on MCA, in my mind, is
that it will become a solution in search of a problem, and I think
that the chances of success then are not great.
When I interviewed at CIIT, the last meeting was with the president
of the institute and the man who would be my dept. head. They
suggested that I might also become involved with the air-flow project:
a project in which computational fluid dynamics and mass-transport
analyses are being used to predict uptake of gases and vapors in the
upper respiratory tract (nose). [Formaldehyde causes nasal tumors in
rats, but morticians, pathologists, and industry-exposed workers do
not get them. Why?] I said that I didn't have much of a background
in mass transport, so wasn't sure what I could contribute. I must
have also showed some of the reluctance/lack of interest I was feeling.
The president then went to the dry-erase board and drew a learning
curve--steep and the beginning then leveling off. He said that as you
keep working in an area, you will get to that leveling off. You're
still making progress, but it's much slower. He then drew another
learning curve above the first, starting just into the leveling off
section of the 1st. He said that for my career I should then move onto
a new learning curve. (The y-axis was 'success' or 'recognition.')
And then he drew another curve on top of that one, and then another.
I have just had a paper accepted in the International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer (a major journal in the field).
Moving to a new curve does not mean that you completely drop the old
one (unless you move onto 3 or 4 new curves at once, as I did.) But
my suggestion for all members of the group is that you look out for
opportunities to branch out, if you haven't done so already. (Sounds
like Doug K. has.) You should certainly take 'natural' branches that
draw a lot from your existing expertise, but remember "if you're a
hammer, all the world looks like a nail." Don't look for MCA-like
problems, look for important problems that you can solve. If you can
use the tools of MCA in the process, great, but if the problem forces
you to develop totally new mathematical tools, I'd say that's even
better.
-Paul
