Is science and technology an end unto itself?
Tue, 26/05/2009 - 15:00
"Science and technology is not an end unto itself. It is a means by which we can pursue sustainable development."
The above quote is from page 20 of Canada's Science & Technology Strategy ("Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage", available at http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ic1.nsf/vwapj/S&Tstrategy.pdf/$file/S&Tstrategy.pdf).
Although merely an off-hand remark in the context of the overall document, it made me pause and think. Is the expansion of scientific knowledge a public "good" in and of itself? Or is basic research funded for the explicit reason that it provides the raw substrate for applied R&D and commercialization, which lead to tangible social and economic benefits to society?
1) On one hand, you could argue that:
- There's a reason why governments only ever refer to science as a 2-word phrase: S&T (science and technology) or S&I (science and innovation): the "technology" and the "innovation" is the ultimate objective.
- Society humours basic research only insofar as it produces discoveries that can be commercialized to create (i) new medical treatments that improve the health of citizens, and (ii) new technologies that lead to industrial innovation and economic activity.
- The taxpayer does not finance the accumulation of knowledge for knowledge's sake.
2) However, on the other hand, you could also argue that:
- Scientific research, no matter how "pure" or "academic", is never just for "knowledge's sake". History shows that the future societal impact of basic research simply cannot be predicted beforehand.
- The general public values scientific knowledge independent of its role as a stepping stone to further socioeconomic progress. The intellectual pursuits of scholars and artists enrich our society in countless ways that go beyond economic activity.
Tue, 29/09/2009 - 15:00
#2
Science as a passion
Doubtless many scientists would pursue their research for sheer curiosity's sake if allowed to do so. A desire to learn about the world around us seems to be a basic attribute of mankind.
That desire can be harnessed for public good in ways besides economic development. For example, if communicated appropriately, modern research can be excellent public outreach tools to increase general scientific literacy. In return, if a science culture can be fostered, the public is more likely to accept their tax dollars being used for research even apart from the economic and technological benefits. It's much easier said than done, of course.
Daniel
Daniel Banks
Strategic Planning & Communications Officer
Canadian Neutron Beam Centre
National Research Council Canada
613-584-8298
Daniel.Banks@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Fri, 12/06/2009 - 15:00
#3
Physics is beauty
Here is a nicely written essay from the Facts & Arguments page of the Globe and Mail, June 11 2009, written by a Canadian PhD student in physics.
I think this piece provides nice support for Jeff's viewpoint (2)! (Also see the first comment below the article, from a very supportive taxpayer!)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/physics-is-beauty/article1177308/
Fri, 12/06/2009 - 15:00
#4
"the hidden secret of the scientist"
One part of the Globe and Mail article cited above by Jason that caught my eye:
"Physics is worth knowing because it is beautiful. It is the hidden secret of the scientist. We may claim to be researching some topic or other because it is "useful to society" or it will revolutionize some technology but, more often than not, we are simply fascinated by some small detail about how the world works and we can't stop thinking about it until we understand it better."
I admit that I completely agree with the above quote - that's certainly why I went into science. However, my impression is that this isn't the government's stated reason for funding S&T.
In fact, the "not-so-hidden secret of the government policy-maker" may be that they spend taxpayers' money on S&T to drive socioeconomic progress, and are not fascinated by small details about how the world works. (I say "not-so-hidden secret", because every policy document I've ever seen praises S&T as a means for economic development, but omits praising science's inherent beauty.)
In fact, the "secret of the scientist" and the "secret of the policy-maker" seem to be useful illusions for both sides.Organizing Committee
Mehrdad Hariri (chair)
Shiva Amiri
Marcius Extavour
Eleanor Fast
Curtis Forbes
Minnie Kim
Jeffrey Kinder
Odile Lagacé
Trevor McKee
Robin McLernon
Anton Neschadim
Jeff Sharom
Mahadeo Sukhai
Ilia Tikhomirov
Masoud Yeganegi
Christine Zhang
Shiva Amiri
Marcius Extavour
Eleanor Fast
Curtis Forbes
Minnie Kim
Jeffrey Kinder
Odile Lagacé
Trevor McKee
Robin McLernon
Anton Neschadim
Jeff Sharom
Mahadeo Sukhai
Ilia Tikhomirov
Masoud Yeganegi
Christine Zhang
Twitter (sciencepolicy)
Jeff Sharoff wrote: " 'Physics is worth knowing because it is beautiful. . . . ' I admit that I completely agree with the above quote - that's certainly why I went into science. However, my impression is that this isn't the government's stated reason for funding S&T."
We need not speculate: laws as far back as Confederation tell us unambiguously that economic and social development are the main reasons for government spending on science; and common sense tells us that profits and institututional development are the main reasons corporations spend money on science.
The question whether S and T are "an end to itself" is misphrased in two respects. First it suggests that S and T are (for current purposes) the same sort of thing. Although they have indeed converged remarkably in the last two generations, the classic distinction persists (since Derek Price, approx. 1970) that science and technology are for practical purposes different. The aim of research in science is truths about material nature, oriented by hypotheses, tested by feasible experiments, and confirmed by repetition of those tests and consensus. The aim of research in technology is (usually) either a specific market objective (e.g. cheaper electricity) or a specific socio-economic objective (e.g. a bridge.)
The practical question for research managers is not whether S and/or T are autonomous or whether either is beautiful. The practical question is how current resources may best be applied to current needs. These may be abstract or scientific needs (enlarging the corps of trained researchers) or they may be specific and practical (e.g. mapping remote places.) Canadian scientists active early in science policy (say 1917-1967) believed they succeeded (i.e. persuaded politicians of the legitimacy of) adding to the economic goals specified in legislation such abstract goals as enlarging the corps of researchers. In parallel, certain leading firms (e.g. General Electric, Kodak, ICI/CIL) adopted this too, i.e. authorized a small amount of disciplinary (free, basic) research in their industrial laboratories. Ever since the atomic bomb (and perhaps earlier e.g. X-rays) science has from time to time generated new technology and technology sometimes generates or enables new science.
But the distinction between science and technology persists in two respects. The undiscovered future truths of science are unpredictable (in any useable detail): they may be intuited but they may not be specified. By contrast, material technology is usually specified by social or economic goals (e.g. antibiotic therapies or semiconductors.) Secondly, the top truths of science are single and universal, the same for all scientists world-wide: there cannot be (in a mature research field) two or more rival truths. Technologies however may be multiple (e.g. incandescent lamps, LEDs, fluorescent lamps etc.) and we know that, in at least some cases, the theoretically best technology is not necessarily the market leader, let alone a monopoly.
The beauty of physics is for practical policy purposes an ornamental diversion. Of course science is fun, i.e. some people enjoy watching bees or gorillas and others like fiddling with apparatus. These are values that can be taught, and it is of primal importance in the schools that they should be taught to as many young people as possible. The research manager will encounter these values, in abundance one hopes, but he could not teach these values to mature scientists who lacked them and (more to the point) he can take them for granted in his decisions where to spend the money and who should do the work. These values are the reasons people take up careers in science, and they can be shared with non-scientists as well. But neither politicians nor research managers need reckon with them in the way both need to deal with other human values (e.g. that people who enjoy their work are usually the most productive.)