The modern sciences are divided into two groups: law-formulating and natural historical sciences. Sciences of both groups aim at describing the world, but they do so differently. Whereas the natural historical sciences produce “transcriptions” intended to be literally true of actual occurrences, laws of nature are expressive symbols of aspects of the world. The relationship between laws and the world thus resembles that between the symbols of classical iconography and the objects for which they stand. The natural historical approach was (...) founded by Aristotle and is retained in such present-day sciences as botany. Modern physics differentiated itself from the natural historical sciences and developed a symbolizing approach at the hands of Galileo and Descartes. Our knowledge of the physical domain is provided by two disciplines: the law-formulating science of physics and a natural historical science on which we depend in the everyday manipulation of our surroundings. (shrink)

In the industrialized countries university research and state-financed research are increasingly evaluated from the point of view of their contribution to technology transfer, industrial innovation, and the competitiveness of national industries. Political debates on the viability of orienting basic research toward practical applications are paralleled by discussions, among social scientists, about the risks and opportunities of political direction over science. These debates are the frame of reference for this study, which analyzes the differences between basic and applied research, their correlates (...) and consequences, in high-temperature superconductor research in the Federal Republic of Germany. It will be shown that basic and applied research are fundamentally different in their social organization, their research goals, and their research strategies. These differences are in contrast to the call of science policy for more intense interaction and assimilation. Nevertheless, there are conditions under which basic or applied re searchers will partially follow "foreign" orientations and strategies. These conditions may, in part, be shaped by policy decisions. (shrink)

An incrementalist view of the R&Dprocess is developed, according to which R&D consists of informed trial and error. One way of avoiding expensive mistakes is to avoid choices within the R&D program that are highly sensitive to a particular scientific claim, because a great deal of time and money may have been spent to no avail should the claim turn out to befalse. The incremental view of R&D therefore entails that no choice within any R&D program is sensitive to any (...) scientific claim made at the time. Two tests are presented, antiseptic surgery and the first atomic pile, both of which confirm the incrementalist thesis. (shrink)

Much has been written about the linear model of innovation. While it may have been the dominant model used to explain technological innovation for decades, alternatives did exist. One such alternative—generally discussed as being the exact opposite of the linear model—is the demand-pull model. Beginning in the 1960s, people from different disciplines started looking at technological innovation from a demand rather than a supply perspective. The theory was that technological innovation is stimulated by market demand rather than by scientific discoveries. (...) However, few traces of the demand-pull model remain in the literature today. This article looks at what happened to the demand-pull model from a historical perspective, at three points in time: birth, crystallization, and death. It suggests that the idea of demand as a factor explaining technological innovation emerged in the 1960s, was formalized into models in the 1970-1980s, then got integrated into “multidimensional” models. From then on, the demand-pull model disappeared from the literature, existing only as an object of the past, like the linear model of innovation. (shrink)