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.
Modified from a contribution in
Solutions.
Discovery
