This October, the future for theoretical physics looks very bright indeed. Readers of The Record will likely be aware of the recent celebrations surrounding the opening of Perimeter Institute's new building, including the presence of Prime Minister Paul Martin and many scientific luminaries, but that was certainly not the only festive occasion in the international physics community.

The following week, in Santa Barbara, Calif., a three-day conference on the future of physics was held, with many of the world's most accomplished physicists debating the direction of their field and related scientific areas.

The conference was held in honour of the 25th anniversary of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, one of the world's most prestigious physics institutes that also opened a new wing on the occasion. One of several scientific institutes renamed after Norwegian-born philanthropist Fred Kavli, who made a $3- million US donation three years ago, the Kavli holds scientific workshops and programs in a wide variety of areas of theoretical physics, and maintains a small, permanent faculty.

One of their faculty, director David Gross, was conveniently awarded the 2004 Nobel Prize in physics several days before the event (together with Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and David Politzer of the California Institute of Technology), making the conference particularly festive.

It was particularly apt for Gross to speculate what the next 25 years might hold. By doing so, he was participating in an established scientific tradition that dates back to the early days of the previous century when David Hilbert, the renowned mathematician, held a conference to determine the key outstanding issues in mathematics that were to guide the community for years to come.

But Gross, who received his Nobel Prize for fundamental contributions to our understanding of the strong nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons, was not content to limit his future colleagues to contemplating mysteries solely in the domain of physics. They were included, of course, and largely reflect the burning scientific issues of the day: What is dark matter? What is dark energy? Does supersymmetry exist? Is quantum mechanics the ultimate description of nature?

But perhaps more interestingly, Gross addressed fundamental issues that many would feel are considerably outside of the purview of contemporary physicists: Can we measure the onset of consciousness in an infant? Can the theory of evolution be made quantitative and predictable? Is physics an environmental science?

To some, such wide-ranging inquiry will stand as yet another infuriating example of the hubris of theoretical physicists. Not content to throw around phrases like "the beginning of time" and "penetrating the mind of God" while they write arcane speculations on the origin of the universe on earthly blackboards, those damned physicists now feel that they can consider fundamental questions in biology or sociology!

One must always be careful not too bite off more than one can chew, and some physicists do have an unfortunate tendency to make bold pronouncements on a number of fields considerably outside their principal areas of expertise. But in my view, that criticism is missing the point here.

Gross and his colleagues are hardly saying they have all the answers to basic questions in other scientific domains. They are merely speculating on how the fields of physics might evolve and how current scientific disciplines may come closer together to address key issues from different perspectives.

That is hardly inappropriate, particularly given the nature of the conference. In fact, to do anything less would be disappointing and reflect a distinct lack of imagination -- something of which theoretical physicists, whatever you might think of them, can rarely be accused.

Gross did not disappoint. Good for him. Good for all of us.