Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Use-inspired Research’ Category


From Archimedes to Edison, attempts to improve quality of life have dictated a need for advances in science and technology. These advances are now widely understood as the key enablers of increasingly prosperous societies.
Despite this long history, the process of managing the expanding frontiers of new knowledge in a way that will benefit society is a work in progress. This is largely due to the unpredictable nature of scientific discovery most famously illustrated by Archimedes, when, upon stepping into the bath, he suddenly realised that the volume of water displaced was equal to the volume of the submerged portion of his body.
His discovery provided the solution to the previously intractable problem of measuring the volume of irregular objects and led to further advances in assessing the density and purity of precious metals among other things. In the modern world little has changed in how new knowledge is acquired. 
However, in an attempt to get the best value for their limited investments, governments have devised processes to manage its discovery.
Interestingly there has been a propensity to divide scientific research into a one-dimensional continuum starting with pure (sometimes known as blue-skies) research progressing through to applied research and on to technology transfer; the defining characteristic of pure research being that it seeks new knowledge with no view as to its application, while applied research seeks solutions to industrial problems.
Such a continuum has been the basis of R&D funding prioritisation in advanced economies around the world since it was promulgated by Vannevar Bush following World War II. In the past few years this mindset has been challenged as it does not accurately reflect the process of science and technology development.
The dynamic nature of the discovery of new knowledge and its commercial application can be observed in the remarkable career of French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur, whose breakthroughs ranged from the first rabies and anthrax vaccines to paving the way for germ theory and pasteurisation. Pasteur was not driven by a quest for new knowledge for its own sake but was motivated by a desire to better understand and solve the problems of industry.
In his early career, he concentrated largely on uncovering new knowledge, but as he did so, came across other, previously unforeseen questions. While working as a chemist at the age of 22 he sought a theoretical understanding of why tartaric acid crystals derived from bio-mass rotated the plane of polarised light while the chemically synthesised form did not.
His experiments revealed that the naturally occurring compound is chiral, meaning its molecules exist in one of two possible crystal structures, each the mirror image of the other. In the process of uncovering this new knowledge, he laid the building blocks for the modern experimental science of crystallography, which is today used in one form or another in everything from gemstone cutting to DNA analysis.
Pasteur’s remarkable career uncovered whole new branches of science – such as microbiology – and, as he developed as a scientist, he began to seek to satisfy both theoretical and practical goals.
Of particular note is the fact that as the problems Pasteur chose to solve became increasingly applied in nature, the nature of his research became more fundamental. Pasteur’s research agenda was use-inspired. Understanding and exploiting the dichotomy between applied and theoretical goals is perhaps the reason behind the breadth of his contribution.
This philosophy is instructive for modern policymakers seeking to get the most from limited investment funds and move away from the outmoded, linear model. The effective management of applied research operations is much more complicated than simplistic models suggest.
A good example of the dynamic nature of new knowledge acquisition and the interaction between applied and fundamental goals is the former IRL’s (now Callaghan Innovation)  high-temperature superconductivity (HTS) research programme, which has its roots in fundamental research but has developed into an emerging New Zealand industry.
IRL’s world-leading capabilities in both fundamental and applied HTS research have positioned New Zealand as a key international player in an industry predicted to be worth billions of dollars globally in the coming decades and transform the way the world generates, uses and distributes electricity.
Ambitious Dunedin-based firm Scott Technology, which purchased a controlling stake in IRL spin-out HTS-110 , clearly understands the value of investing in technology. Its approach is already paying dividends, judging by its inclusion in the fast-mover list of the Technology Investment Network’s top 100 technology firms by revenue.

Read Full Post »

A recent conference conducted by the New Zealand Association of Scientists has drawn attention to the argument about whether funding should be provided for pure research, or for applied research. This is a common, ongoing dichotomy in many debates over research, particularly that funded from the public purse.
The reality, however, is that this debate is based on the erroneous assumption that industry benefits only from applied research, and that research directed at assisting industry must be applied.
This is an oversimplification, based on the definitions of research developed by Vannevar Bush in the post-World War II era of economic expansion.
Donald Stokes in his 1997 book Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation argues that there is a far stronger link between research of the more basic nature and innovation in industry than many appreciate.  In fact, the dominant form of research is use-inspired, regardless of whether it is at the discovery or the application part of the cycle.
Yet, industry (and a large body of policy-makers) is lead to believe that it needs applied research. Thus the attention has turned to wants, rather than needs.
What industry needs is research that is appropriate to solve the problem at hand, or exploit the opportunity recognised. (And this is best driven by better problem definition, not the meaningless classification of science).
Very often the real needs of industry cannot be met from available knowledge, which means that the research it needs must be of a more discovery nature. As Stokes eloquently puts it when he uses Louis Pasteur as his example, the more involved you become in the application of scientific knowledge in the market, the more you identify even more fundamental questions to be answered. These fundamental questions need to be answered to enable full exploitation in the market. 
Others explain the concept better than me, such as this contribution from Washington State University.   
The Lessons of Pasteur’s Example can be summed up:
         Pasteur was a chemist & microbiologist
         Driven to solve the problems of industry – fermentation
         Breakthroughs include vaccines (rabies & anthrax), germ theory & pasteurisation (of course)
         While ‘use inspired’ he answered fundamental science questions, because he needed the answers in order to answer industry questions
         Suggests that industry focused research includes both applied and pure/fundamental
         Focus should be on outcomes, not type of research
What is the utility of all of this? 
Countless hours are wasted on trying to determine whether the public should be supporting applied research or basic research. Far less time is spent on identifying the priorities to be researched, or the questions and challenges to be answered.  More time spent on the latter will enable the scarce public resources to be better targeted at activities that make a difference.
Once the priorities are identified it is easier to determine how much effort is needed in discovery and how much in application – that choice depends on what we know about the field, how much information and knowledge has already been discovered, and what remain the unanswered questions.
Deciding what to do on the basis of whether it is pure or applied research does little more than distort the research agenda. Research is research, and the nature of the research depends on how much knowledge we have in relation to the problem or the opportunity we are examining.
Now, a debate about national priorities – that’s an entirely different beast! As is how much is needed to be invested!  How do we best define the problems, or characterise the opportunities?

Read Full Post »