17.1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

There is consensus in the literature and among knowledgeable scientists that technology stimulates science. As Bondi (1967) put it: "It is certainly a matter of experience that every time our experimental technique has taken a leap forward, we have found things totally unexpected and wholly unimaginable before. I see no reason whatever to expect that future improvements in experimental techniques will not have the same effect." This comment reminds us of the advances in astronomy after the development of the telescope, in bacteriology after the invention of the microscope, and so on.

Less obvious examples include advancements in meteorological prediction after the invention of the supercomputer, and advancements in oceanography after the invention of applications of the Doppler Effect (such as SONAR and Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler). Innumerable other examples are possible. It is important to note the distinction between a singular technology transforming innovative processes and those processes becoming parental to more new processes. As an example, the innovation of refining and manufacturing processes to create silicon microchips has transformed various fields of study and has expanded the technological capacity of the world. This process and the technology produced from the process have also simplified existing—and created new—innovative processes itself. In this way, innovative processes become self-perpetuating, whereas unique technologies are often independent of the processes they impact. Yet that process itself is not wholly unique to one field of study, nor can its application be tied to a single field of scientific or social discovery in the same way as a telescope can be linked to the discovery of new stars and planets.

The process we use to understand outer space, whether from Earth or the Hubble Telescope, or using thermal or radio imaging, constantly grows and changes, but the central technology—telescopes—remains largely unchanged in functionality, even if size and location changes with the processes. Associatively, while silicon microchips can be used in computers that design better microchips, the observation of stars will not produce a better telescope no matter how long we look. In this way, there is a differentiation in fields that require research to begin and expand away from the original technology, and fields that take the basic research of their own beginning and multiply it into various new areas of applied research.

The reality of both branches is that investment in basic research leads to the development of unique technologies that allow new fields to propagate. However, due to the complex relationship between unique technologies and the processes those technologies spur on (which often create more unique technologies by themselves), it's not always obvious that basic research has such a necessary role in the development of new technological fields. The importance of investment in innovation is such that many new fields have an early dependency on basic research that they do not always outgrow. An example of this dependency is the field of computers, and the silicon chip. The field of computer engineering was dependent on basic research into material testing to discover the data capacity of silicon (and more recently, diamonds). However, the transfer between universities performing basic research, and the industries that could use it via manufacturing processes, requires appropriate linkages and further investment in development activities.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) developed the Industry/University Co-operative Research Program to help address the disconnect perceived between research performed at universities and the subsequent technology used by various industries. This in turn led to the economic idea of "New Growth Theory," which postulates that the growth of knowledge is a society's greatest resource (NAS, 2008, p. 9). Therefore, investment in basic research allows developed societies to have access to an arguably infinite resource vital for their continued economic growth and for addressing crucial social, environmental, human health, and sustainability needs that otherwise are not likely to be addressed effectively.

The best conclusion, it seems, is to think of the scientific and technological systems as mutually supportive and interacting. Science, technology, and the market are interrelated (Freeman and Soete, 1997), and in developing science policy we ought to consider support for both science and follow-up activities for the innovation process. Science generates understanding of fundamental mechanisms and new knowledge and the innovation process focuses on commercial and societal use of knowledge.