Engineering is the process by which technology is developed. It often requires problem-solving under strict constraints.[115] Technological development is "action-oriented", while scientific knowledge is fundamentally explanatory.[116] Polish philosopher Henryk Skolimowski framed it like so: "science concerns itself with what is, technology with what is to be."[117]: 375
The direction of causality between scientific discovery and technological innovation has been debated by scientists, philosophers and policymakers.[118] Because innovation is often undertaken at the edge of scientific knowledge, most technologies are not derived from scientific knowledge, but instead from engineering, tinkering and chance.[119]: 217–240 For example, in the 1940s and 1950s, when knowledge of turbulent combustion or fluid dynamics was still crude, jet engines were invented through "running the device to destruction, analyzing what broke [...] and repeating the process".[115] Scientific explanations often follow technological developments rather than preceding them.[119]: 217–240 Many discoveries also arose from pure chance, like the discovery of penicillin as a result of accidental lab contamination.[120] Since the 1960s, the assumption that government funding of basic research would lead to the discovery of marketable technologies has lost credibility.[121][122] Probabilist Nassim Taleb argues that national research programs that implement the notions of serendipity and convexity through frequent trial and error are more likely to lead to useful innovations than research that aims to reach specific outcomes.[119][123]
Despite this, modern technology is increasingly reliant on deep, domain-specific scientific knowledge. In 1975, there was an average of one citation of scientific literature in every three patents granted in the U.S.; by 1989, this increased to an average of one citation per patent. The average was skewed upwards by patents related to the pharmaceutical industry, chemistry, and electronics.[124] A 2021 analysis shows that patents that are based on scientific discoveries are on average 26% more valuable than equivalent non-science-based patents.Skolimowski Despite this, modern technology is increasingly reliant on deep, domain-specific scientific knowledge. In 1975, there was an average of one citation of scientific literature in every three patents granted in the U.S.; by 1989, this increased to an average of one citation per patent. The average was skewed upwards by patents related to the pharmaceutical industry, chemistry, and electronics.[124] A 2021 analysis shows that patents that are based on scientific discoveries are on average 26% more valuable than equivalent non-science-based patents.Skolimowski Despite this, modern technology is increasingly reliant on deep, domain-specific scientific knowledge. In 1975, there was an average of one citation of scientific literature in every three patents granted in the U.S.; by 1989, this increased to an average of one citation per patent. The average was skewed upwards by patents related to the pharmaceutical industry, chemistry, and electronics.[124] A 2021 analysis shows that patents that are based on scientific discoveries are on average 26% more valuable than equivalent non-science-based patents.Skolimowski Despite this, modern technology is increasingly reliant on deep, domain-specific scientific knowledge. In 1975, there was an average of one citation of scientific literature in every three patents granted in the U.S.; by 1989, this increased to an average of one citation per patent. The average was skewed upwards by patents related to the pharmaceutical industry, chemistry, and electronics.[124] A 2021 analysis shows that patents that are based on scientific discoveries are on average 26% more valuable than equivalent non-science-based patents.Skolimowski
You must be logged in to post a comment.