Sources of innovation

A set of pages on technology, science, research, development, history and education.

Introduction

There is a widely held view about how scientific discoveries are related to technical innovation. This view is reflected in the range of quotes from influential sources given in the boxes on this page. They span research policy, the histories of science and technology, and education. The language of the quotes is that science enables, leads straight to, creates, precedes or explains. The consequent practical advances, problems solved, new techniques or innovations are countless, important or numerous, and they have emerged from science or are inconceivable without it. Three of the quotes distinguish basic or frontier research from applied research and invention, and say that the former stimulates or provides knowledge for the latter.

The terms science and technology are generally used to cover a wide variety of interconnected activities. When the quotes refer to science, they describe it as basic research that is not related to a useful application, is not practically motivated, concerns fundamental concepts and universal laws and is driven by curiosity to make discoveries that extend the frontiers of knowledge. In these terms science does not include research intended to create or improve industrial products (for example a better battery), nor does it include research into climate with the objective of predicting it, nor into disease with the objective of preventing it.

Although these quotes are from different fields, they reflect facets of a common view, which I will refer to as science precedes technology. This incorporates their beliefs that the science was done earlier in history, that the science is a prerequisite for innovation, and that the science is to be taught before the technology is understood.

Although the view is stated or assumed with confidence in the quotes alongside, it has been the subject of considerable debate by specialists. The quotes here that refer to basic research are actively campaigning in its support, so it is understandable that they present only one side of the debate. The debate has been vigorous in the histories of science and technology, so the assertions of Wootton and Ferguson can be understood as an expression of the side they have taken. The Britannica article is more concerning: the view seems to be put without question in a resource that is relied on for its expertise by the general public. The presentation of the view without debate in the education curriculum is of greatest concern, because it forms the views of its pupils.

The debate brings up basic questions, such as: Are science and technology really separate activities, and if so, in what ways? How do they relate to each other? How have they changed over the course of history? What is the purpose of education in these subjects? Should current educational practice be changed, and if so, how can the change be effected? These questions are hard to answer in isolation, and made even harder by their being interlinked across different specialisms. I approach the problem through four separate pages looking at different areas, then try to draw these together in the conclusions on this page below.

It should be pointed out that the focus on these pages on the production of technical innovation does not in any way suggest that it should be the only criterion for deciding on what research to undertake or what to teach. The aim here is to clarify how innovation arises, and to make sure that if practical benefits are claimed for any particular decision, the claim has a well understood basis.

The pages:

Technology, research, development, and science starts by looking at material from popular and expert sources, to see how science and technology are described and defined. It goes on to examine accounts of where innovation comes from, and review data on people in science and technology. A specific recent European research programme is then examined, and the connections between technical developments and published research are explored. Some ideas about the community that produces those publications are discussed, and the possibility of using data on publications to identify separate science and technology disciplines is investigated. Finally, the the science disciplines are identified by the connections between that community and education.

Technology and science education looks at how technology and science are treated in courses and curricula in four countries. The considerable quantity of documentation produced by two of them in their more recent efforts to justify or modify their treatments is surveyed. This documentation includes various views of the relationship between science and technology, and gives an insight into how the view that science precedes technology continues to prevail. Next, the results of research into the learning, attractiveness and uses of these subjects are discussed, along with the views of educationalists and efforts of reformers. They do not share the prevailing view, and it is evident that there are many obstacles to reform, including a lack of material to support an alternative.

A problem in the history of science and technology looks at material relating to the development of steam power technology at the turn of the 18th century. This is an iconic event in the origins of industrialisation. Different views have been expressed over the last two hundred years as to whether science may have contributed to bringing it about. The view of engineers and practitioners was that scholarly research contributed little to enabling the new technology. This view does not prevail in current scholarly publications on the history of science and technology. An examination of material from ten of these publications in detail shows fatal flaws in the arguments and interpretation of evidence. A reason for this consensus of error among scholars is suggested.

Raising water presents an account of how the developers of steam power could succeed with just their practical experience. The account shows how a problem driven technical approach can arrive at the arrangement of components and resources that was successful in launching the new technology. The history and evolution of a less successful and less safe arrangement, preferred by more scientifically aware developers, is also described.

Conclusions from the pages

The view

The view that science precedes technology prevails in the headline definitions in popular encyclopaedias, but a little further reading in these sources shows that the view is debatable. The view also fails to acknowledge the independence of technical knowledge. Investigations since 1945 into the connections between basic research and innovation have not provided support for the view. The ongoing debate is complicated by the personal and institutional interests of the people taking part in it. Historical studies of technology show that innovations precede the scientific knowledge of how the novel artefacts work, and that the main source of technological change is improvement, not the discoveries of science.

The prevailing view also associates the absence of practical motives with the production of fundamental advances in knowledge. This is a model of knowledge production which is too simple. Research motivated by practical aims also produces rigorous results of fundamental and general importance. This is recognised in current guidelines for collecting data on research and development.

To take a specific example, the documentation for a recent EU research framework describes a major programme for research on specific technical themes, and a considerably smaller programme for research at the frontier of knowledge production. The frontier programme is organised by the European Research Council on behalf of the academic research community. The term frontier includes basic and applied research, confirming that a practical orientation is not now regarded as a bar to advancing knowledge.

A brief study of three research topics covered by the framework shows that the production of research publications on each topic responded clearly and promptly to technical developments and opportunities. The positioning of these topics between the programmes depended on how recent these developments were, with the most recent being most associated with the frontier research programme, and the longest established with the technical themes programme. This indicates that research of all types is responding to practical developments, and that the frontier programme is operating at a technical and practical frontier rather than at a frontier of science.

The picture that emerges is that technical development and practical interest drives a range of research projects, some more speculative than others. The more speculative ones take place in the academic research community. In this picture the concerns expressed in the quotes on this page for protecting "basic" research can be met if the developments are done thoroughly, with proper regard for the longer term. This includes overall coordination of projects so that cross project and cross disciplinary goals can be identified. These are all matters that are addressed by major research programmes, and those seeking funding from them, at present.

The academic research community can be identified with the practice of publishing research results in peer reviewed journals. The community resides mainly in higher education institutions, and also in national academies, institutes and research centres. A principle of the community is that advances in knowledge are attributed personally to its members, and that the accumulation of attributions is recognised by rewards and status in the community. Any attribution of advances in knowledge to those outside the academic community takes away from the attributions that can be made within it.

A brief survey of research into the links between research publications shows that they do not reveal any separation into science and technology disciplines. This separation is present, however, in the courses which the researchers take in their education to qualify to work in the academic institutions. These institutions take a leading role in setting standards for the earlier stages of national education systems.

Education

A brief review of statistics on entrants and achievement, educational materials, and curricula in Scotland, England, France and the USA shows very different roles for science and technology in these countries. In England and the USA technology is relegated to a low status at the margins of a general education. This is despite the fact that, in higher education, course numbers in technical subjects are far greater than in core science subjects.

The National Curriculum in England and the Next Generation Science Standards in the USA are based around core science ideas. They express the view that these ideas provide the means for the learner to live or work with technology, and are the best route to future technical studies. A science curriculum based on this view is indigestible and unpopular. This has prompted some recent curriculum developments in these countries. A brief study of these developments shows that the view was not modified, and the developments have left technology in a segregated and subordinate role. Alternative views did arise in the course of the developments, but were either ignored or sank without trace in the final product.

The histories of science and technology are often referenced in support of policies for research or educational curriculum development in England the USA. These references assume that since the advent of science it has been the source of technical innovation, and do not mention the ongoing debate on the issue.

Technology and science education, and the relationship between them, has been the subject of much educational research. Educationalists have taken a careful look at the relationships between science and technology, and identified the prevalence of the view that science precedes technology. They have pointed out the deficiencies in curricula that express the view. Curricula based instead on practical applications have been developed, but have not been generally adopted. One obstacle to their wider adoption is that the practical approach is associated with technology and its lower academic status. Another obstacle is that teachers and teaching material at the necessary technical level are in short supply.

History

In the debate about the relationship between science and technology, the origin of the early steam engine is particularly significant. The Newcomen engine and its derivatives were the prime power mover behind significant stages of [the] industrialization process. That process involved countless innovations from many sources. Of these, the steam engine has drawn the strongest claims that it arose from specific advances in science. If these claims fail, the view that science preceded technology in that period has lost its main support.

All parties agree that Newcomen and his associates designed, developed, constructed and installed the early steam engines, and that this was a remarkable achievement of lasting significance. This triumph of the artisans is celebrated by engineers in the nineteenth century in their treatises on the history and practice of the steam engine. Their accounts include the experiments and demonstrations of scholarly researchers, but also point out that artisans were familiar with the elements of the successful design long before they became of interest to science.

The prevailing opinion among present day historians is that the the novel concepts of the vacuum and the atmosphere contributed to the development of the engine. There is no record of any link between the developers of the engine and the novel concepts or the scholarly researchers that published them. The assertion that a contribution must have been made is based on arguments that for one reason or another the development of the engine was impossible without them. This argument is nullified by the account on Raising water which describes how the work could be done by the developers and their associates with just their own knowledge and experience.

This account is framed in technical terms and shows how the successful engine could be developed. This differs from the historians accounts which look at the design of the finished engine to see what scientific principles it might illustrate, and then explain the development of the engine in terms of the principles. The account in technical terms conveys a better understanding of the history, and a deeper insight into the development process. The success of the Newcomen engine rested not on the knowledge of certain principles, but on two key decisions about which of the available techniques to employ: the choice of condensation instead of steam under pressure, and the choice of a piston and cylinder to obtain mechanical force from fluid pressure.

The application of technical knowledge and understanding to some of the historians' arguments reveals errors and absurdities in them. It is possible that the arguments were developed under the assumption that core science ideas are a sufficient basis for understanding technology. This assumption is shared in general education in England and the USA.

Another attempt at steam power, contemporary with Newcomen's work, does have a link with scholarly researchers. This attempt took a very different form, in the shape of the Savery pump. Devices of this type underwent a number of catastrophic failures before their dangerous and superfluous elements were discarded. In advocating this type of device, science promoted a diversion of resources into a developmental dead end, and so made a negative contribution to the successful development of steam power

What can be done?

Curriculum developments in the USA and England have aimed to make science courses more popular with students, and more relevant to the technical work they will be doing when they finish their education. The work of educational researchers shows that science courses are unattractive to a wide range of students if they segregate science from technology. Curricula in France and Scotland provide examples of curricula which combine technology and science with equal weight and equal status. They are more popular with students, and introduce them to technology from the outset.

Clearly, one way to achieve the aims set out for science courses in the USA and England would be to follow the example of France and Scotland, and take account of the relevant findings of educational research. One obstacle to this outcome at the time was that the curriculum development process took little notice of curricula in other countries, or of educational research. The education system in each of the four countries retains its national identity, and distinguishes itself from the others, rather than looking to them for solutions.

The national identities of education systems in the USA and England incorporate the view that science precedes technology. There are good reasons why this view should not prevail: it does not apply to the way in which research and development proceeds currently, and it is not supported by a technically aware analysis of how it proceeded in the past. The most important reason for overturning it remains, however, that curricula which conform to this view are misinforming and misdirecting students in their education.