Role of Basic Research in Technological Change - Report Example

Role of Basic Research in Technological Change Premise Linguistically the word “technology” traces its roots in the Greek words tekhne meaning “craft” and logos meaning “say”. Hence it is the art of using one’s craft. Technology as a field is so vast that it is almost impossible to have one all-encompassing definition for it. However, from an abundance of definitions the one that is nearest to being wholesome is that, “technology is the application of scientific method and material to achieve a commercial, industrial or social objective”. Technology changes basically involve improving or changing existing technology, innovating absolutely new technology or changing the “techno-economic paradigm” which entails reorganization of production and consumption patterns. In the modern times technology has become an essential part of society, especially in economic terms. As noted in the Science magazine issue of 23 October 1998, “technology companies founded in just the last 30 years have created an aggregate capital value of close to a trillion dollars, making technology a major engine driving the U.S. economy”.[1]. These technological developments owe their success to research which, in turn, is of two types; namely basic research and applied research. Basic research essentially aims at improving knowledge and theoretical understanding of a subject. It is exploratory in nature without any specific end in mind and motivated by the researcher’s curiosity. Applied research is founded on basic research but does not seek to gain knowledge for its sake. It is carried out with some specific aim in view. An example of genetic-codes will help put the difference between the two in perspective. Unscrambling the code just for the sake of knowledge would be basic research. But using that knowledge to alter the code in a way to find a cure for cancer would be applied research. It may be debatable, but from the above description it transpires that technological change occurs due to applied research with its foundations embedded in basic research. [2]. According to America’s Committee on Economic Development, the tremendous technological development of the 20th Century owes credit to basic research. After World War II, United States concentrated huge funds on basic research, building a strong scientific base and an energetic scientific community. Its leading position in computing, biotechnology and a host of other fields is a direct result of that basic research. The economic benefits it reaped are already mentioned above. In view of such tremendous success, continuous and proportionate funding of basic research would appear a logical conclusion. But that is not the case. Laboratories and research centers have been down-sized, funds have been reduced, the older companies are cutting back on research and the younger companies are simply ignoring it. It is the aim of this paper to study the role of basic research in technological changes and the impact of government policy on its future. Precarious Position of Basic Research Basic research is usually a risky undertaking. Since it is exploratory in nature it is neither possible to predict what one will find nor what the ultimate utility of that find would be. Yet it has led to a no of developments in every walk of life. Thus, in the words of Earnest L Eliel, the President of American Chemical Society in 1992, “Rosenbergs research on the potential effects of electric fields on cell division led to the discovery of an important cancer drug; Kendalls work on the hormones of the adrenal gland led to an anti-inflammatory substance; Caruthers work on giant molecules led to the invention of Nylon; Bloch and Purcells fundamental work in the absorption of radio frequency by atomic nuclei in a magnetic field led to MRI. Development of gene splicing by Cohen and Boyer produced, among other products, better insulin. Haagen-Smits work on air pollutants spawned the catalytic converter. Reinitzers discovery of liquid crystals is about to revolutionize computer and flat-panel television screens, and the discovery of the laser - initially a laboratory curiosity - is used in such diverse applications as the reattachment of a detached retina and the reading of barcodes in supermarkets”. [3]. But despite such obvious examples, basic research has been under pressure for quite some time. There are three reasons for this. Firstly, basic research is often very expensive and without any guarantees of future monetary benefits. At the same time public funding is getting correspondingly lesser and lesser. For example German Science Council recently put up a proposal for promotion of nine large scale basic research facilities. The investment for all nine facilities ranges from $15 million (for a High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Dresden) to $4 billion (for a Linear Positron Electron Collider at Hamburg). Such high costs are difficult to bear even for a developed country like Germany. So the matter will be decided on the basis of an evaluation by Science Council. Secondly, donor agencies expect that basic research will automatically lead to technological innovations and economic gains. But all those involved with basic research know that there is no linear transition of basic research to economic gains. To start with, basic research requires expensive infrastructure like secure buildings, laboratory equipment and research material. Add to that the intangible cost of labor, wages and over-head expenses and the budget may run into millions per month. And on top of all that there is no guarantee that the end result will prove profitable from monetary point of view. Another aspect is that even if a state invests heavily in basic research there is no certainty that the knowledge thus gained will not be passed on outside the country illegally. In such a situation even government funding experiences snags and delays. Finally the third reason is what may be called a “confidence problem” between research and society. In the earlier post-war era, there was a silent “social contract” that research will continue to receive uninterrupted funding to get useful knowledge. But over the past couple of decades costs have gone high, funding has reduced and the governments are running low on capital. Due to these factors there has been a change in paradigm. Phrases like “programmatic”, “mission oriented” or “strategic” basic research have cropped up. New governance models have come up and external audit is required for further funding. Such changes are not welcomed by scientists as they consider that governance of research is against the spirit of free research. They feel that research standards should be set by scientific community and its results should be judged by scientists. [4]. Over the past couple of decades governments have realized the importance of research in technological advancement. They have also learned the economic benefits that arise from successful technologies. Therefore, as a rule the governments have been trying to direct research, with public funding, towards what they consider to be national priorities. This may be in line with political goals but is against the norms of research. As Nathan Rosenberg of Stanford University points out that, “the government should ordinarily resist the temptation to play the role of a champion of any one technological alternative, such as nuclear power, or any narrowly concentrated focus of research support, such as the War on Cancer. Rather, it would seem to make a great deal of sense to manage a deliberately diversified research portfolio, a portfolio that will illuminate a range of alternatives in the event of a reordering of social or economic priorities”. [5]. Improving Resource Allocation for Basic Research At present there is a waste and, to a certain degree, inefficiency in allocation of funds for basic research. According to Committee of Economic Development, “Shortcomings in allocation arise on two levels: 1) in the allocation of the research grant from the funding agency to the researcher, whether it is done competitively, based on peer review, and whether it is directed toward individual investigators rather than institutions; 2) in the allocation of funds to agencies and missions from Congress”. [6]. In the recent past, US government has launched an act called Government Performance and Results Act (GPRS). According to GPRS, all government agencies are required to submit performance reports to assess the standard of their output. It is mainly aimed at increasing accountability of the agencies but is posing a big problem for researchers. For one reason the outcome of research cannot be measured in any specific quantity. Congressional earmarks are another sore point in management of allocations. From some thousands in the last decade, these earmarks have swelled into millions. Most often these earmarks are driven by narrow political aims, although sometimes they have commendable objectives also like regional economic development. An answer to address this anomaly is peer-reviewed awards to researchers which improves the allocation of funds from government to individual researchers. [6]. Another aspect requiring policy attention is balance in basic research missions. At present maximum attention and funds are diverted towards health mission. Although there is no denying the importance of health sector, ignoring other fields seems foolish. Basic research in different fields is a mutually-reinforcing process. For example, health research has benefited a lot from developments in computer sciences, behavioral sciences and even mathematics. And similarly there are fields which have benefited from advances in health sciences. Therefore, reducing allocation to other disciplines conversely affects the discipline under question also. Federal support for basic research should be diverse and not confined to any specific mission or discipline. In the long run this “diverse model” is more feasible from a political perspective and is more likely to reap unexpected dividends in the field of basic research also. [6]. Impact of Innovation on Basic Research Nowadays innovation occupies an important place in a country’s economic strength. It is regarded as an important factor in firm survival. [7]. Hi-tech companies like Sony depend on a succession of new products for survival. But such level of innovation is hard to achieve. There is no doubt that talent plays an important part in innovation. Chester Carlson of Xerox, Edwin Land of Polaroid and Bill Gates of Microsoft are few examples. But scientific community itself understands the impact of basic research in innovation. [8]. But the governments are also realizing that without the reservoir of basic research innovation process cannot be carried on indefinitely. UNESCO’s report on importance of basic research in innovation spells this out comprehensively and concisely. To quote directly from the report, “nowadays, a country’s economic performance depends more than ever on its capacity to innovate. Research is adapting to this world trend and is being harnessed to the economy. But governments, especially in North America, have become aware that they cannot neglect basic research. In the short term, applied research undoubtedly leads to technological innovation. But in the long run, without the reservoir of knowledge produced by basic research, innovation breaks down. Even corporations have made a commitment to basic research, which until now was conducted in public-sector laboratories funded by the state. To create new products, they need scientists capable of understanding what is going on in the public sector, building relations with that sector and drawing on its results. Today, the problem no longer lies in deciding whether basic or applied research should be the priority, but in striking a balance between them, distributing tasks and organizing exchanges between universities and the corporate world”. [9]. Role of Research Universities The best and most productive use of government funds would be for research universities. Undoubtedly the best basic research results have been repeatedly produced by universities. Another reason to support funding of research universities is that here the future scientists learn their craft in the most competitive environment under the guidance of the best brains of their times. There is no substitute to such training. [6]. But there are some problems for the university and individual researcher in securing funds which need immediate redress. The process of securing grants is so burden-some that it has many young scientists from pursuing a career in research. There is a need for grant making agencies to ensure that outstanding scientists get longer-term grants, younger scientists get sufficient grants to start their careers and researchers who suffer a set back because of any stoppage in grant are not forced to abandon useful research. A longer funding period for research grants may be a better option as applying and re-applying for grant has a disturbing effect on researchers. [6]. Research grants to universities include funds to cover expenses of direct research and overhead expenses like plants, equipment and manpower. The re-imbursement of these expenses varies from grant to grant. Universities find it extremely difficult to bear these overhead charges on their own. A system of “benchmark” rates may be advisable in which overhead rates associated with research are set by benchmarks. Benchmarks will be decided on the basis of periodical checking of costs at sample universities. It will be different for different disciplines. It will also reduce the leverage which government enjoys over the universities and in turn will encourage universities to keep their expenses below the benchmark. Reduction in auditing costs will also be achieved. [6]. Some observers object that the number of universities competing for federal grant in basic research is far too many. This will result in stretching of basic research resources. It is not possible to fix a specific number as it is not possible to predict who will make a discovery. However, peer-review is the best method to judge which university to be granted funds. [6]. Future Consequences and Policy Guidelines For future development we need basic research as well as applied research. We also need a system of funding which respects the norms of scientific community and also meets the basic requirements of accountability. First of all there is a need to demolish the institutional walls separating different research organizations. In the past there was a practice to make certain area of research the “domain” of a particular institution. But that limits the potential of different researchers. There is a need to synergize and let different research networks inter-act. [6]. The future capacity of basic research depends on long-term thinking today. Budgetary constraints make funding of research projects in the coming years a matter of doubt. Secondly building up the human capital i.e. qualified and well trained scientists are also a requirement of the future which seems to be in doubt. [6]. Although there has been a lot of rhetoric in the recent past to increase short-term funding for basic research budget allocations for basic research are likely to become less in the years to come. One reason is the concept of national competitiveness on which federal government focuses the bulk of its research fund. This concept essentially relates to use of applied research to develop technology. That comes in the domain of private sector – i.e. development of technologies and using them for commercial purpose. Therefore, government should divert most of its funds on basic research. [6]. A very important point to ponder is to ensure a sustained input of future scientists and engineers, a work force sufficiently skilled to put the research to use and a society which understands the importance of basic research. High achievement standards in all core subjects especially science and math are the first step to ensure a continuous supply of scientists and engineers. Better qualified teachers coupled with interactive learning technologies available today can improve student performance and learning. At graduate level, students should be given hands-on experience of research projects. There is an argument in the USA that since other countries have free access to basic research results of USA the tax-payer should not have to pay for it. But these fears of other countries using basic research of USA are quite unfounded. The country which exploits the results first definitely gains monetary benefits in the short-term. But the country which carries out research has the capability of being the first-mover. Moreover the two-way exchange of knowledge helps both countries to prosper. [6]. Intellectual piracy has a negative role on innovative research process. Patent laws enable a researcher or research institution to claim economic benefits of their research. This in turn spurs further innovative research. In the emerging global environment, it is important that all countries should have a similar set of patent rights. Piracy in any one country hurts innovative research efforts in all countries undertaking that research. [6]. As basic research becomes more and more expensive there is a need to have international collaboration in this field. Countries have doubts and reservations regarding such collaboration but they are at government level. On individual level information flows freely between countries on internet and through conferences etc. By cooperating at government level in projects that have a global impact we can carry out research in fields which are difficult to be handled alone by one country. [6]. Conclusion The growing realization of importance of basic research has triggered many policy changes. But there are certain discrepancies yet which must be removed to make the policy more supportive of basic research. Some measures to implement are :- New knowledge of research findings should be made known to all in the minimum possible time so as to support ongoing or future research. Licensing of intellectual property and enforcement of patent laws can revitalize the research process. Procedure for technology transfer at university level should be evolved and implemented. Federal and private sector funding of research should be streamlined to include basic research as federal responsibility and applied research as private sector responsibility. [6]. Works Cited 1. Myhrvold, Nathan. Supporting Science. Science 23 October 1998. Vol 282 2. 3. Eliel, Earnest. The Importance of Basic Research. Science and Serendipity. 1992 4. Einhauupl, Karl Max. What Does Basic Research Mean in Today’s Research Environment. OECD Workshop, Norway. 5. Rosenberg, Nathan. Uncertainty and Technological Change. Speech before National Academy of Sciences, April 1994. 6. Committee for Economic Development. America’s Basic Research: Prosperity Through Discovery. Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 1999. 7. Utterback, J.M. Mastering The Dynamics Of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press.1994. 8. Leavy, Brian and Jacobson, David. Innovation: The Case for Multi Level Research. 9. Read More