Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1the Relationship Between Science and Technology Harvey Brooks
1the Relationship Between Science and Technology Harvey Brooks
and technology
Harvey Brooks
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Universily, 79 J.F.K. Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
whole would be abte to draw almost automati- new to them, whether or not they are new to the
caliy as required to fulfil its aspirations and needs. universe, or even to the nation.” The current US
Though most knowledgeable people under- mental model of innovation often places excessive
stood that such a model corresponded only to the emphasis on originality in the sense of newness to
rare and exceptional cases cited above, it became the universe as opposed to newness in context. In
embodied in political rhetoric and took consider- general, the activities and investments associated
able hold on the public imagination and seemed with ‘technoIogica1 leadership’ in the sense of
to be confirmed by a sufficient number of dra- absolute originali~ differ much less than is gen-
matic anecdotes so that it was regarded as typical erally assumed from those associated with simply
of the entire process of technological innovation, staying near the forefront of best national or
though it was severely criticized by many scholars. world practice. Yet R&D is also necessary for
(See Kline and Rosenberg (1986) for an example learning about technology even when it is not
of criticism and an excellent discussion of a more ‘new to the universe’ but only in the particular
realistic and typical model.) One consequence context in which it is being used for the first time
was considerable confusion in the public mind (Brooks, 1991, pp. 20-25).
between science and engineering, an excessive However, innovation involves much more than
preoccupation with technical originality and pri- R&D. Charpie (1967) has provided a representa-
ority of conception as not only necessary but tive allocation of effort that goes into the intro-
sufficient conditions for successful technological duction of a new product, as follows:
innovation, and in fact an equating of organized (a) conception, primarily knowledge genera-
research and development (R&D) with the inno- tion (research, advanced development, basic in-
vation process itself. The ratio of national R&D vention) 5-10%;
expenditures to gross domestic product (GDP) (b) product design and engineering, lo-20%;
often became a surrogate measure of national cc> getting ready for manufacturing (lay-out,
technological performance and, uItimately, of tooling, process design), 40-60%;
long-term national economic potential. The con- (d) manufacturing start-up, debugging produc-
tent of R&D was treated as a ‘black box’ that tion, 5-15%;
yielded benefits almost independently of what (e) marketing start-up, probing the market,
was inside it (Brooks, 1993, pp. 30-31). lo-20%.
The public may be forgiven its confusions, as It does not follow from this that R&D or
indeed the relationships between science and knowledge generation is only 5-10% of total in-
technology are very complex, though interactive, novative activity because many projects are started
and are often different in different fields and at that never get beyond stage (a) and an even
different phases of a technological ‘life cycle’. smaller proportion of projects are carried all the
Nelson (1992) has given a definition of technology way through stage (e). In addition, there is a
both as “ . . , specific designs and practices” and as certain amount of background research that is
“generic knowledge.. . that provides understand- carried out on a level-of-effort basis without any
ing of how [and why] things work.. . ” and what specific product in mind. There is no very good
are the most promising approaches to further estimate of what percentage of the innovative
advances, including “. . . the nature of currently activity of a particular firm would be classified in
binding constraints.” It is important here to note category (a) if unsuccessful projects or back-
that technoiogy is not just things, but also embod- ground research are taken into account. The fact
ies a degree of generic understanding, which remains that all five stages involve a certain pro-
makes it seem more like science, and yet it is portion of technical work which is not classified
understanding that relates to a specific artifact, as R&D, and the collection of statistical data on
which distinguishes it from normal scientific un- this portion of ‘downstream’ innovative activity is
derstanding, although there may be a close corre- in a very rudimentary state compared with that
spondence. for organized R&D. Indeed, only about 35% of
Similarly, Nelson (1992, p. 349) defines innova- scientists and engineers in the US are employed
tion as “ . . . the processes by which firms master in R&D.
and get into practice product designs that are In small firms, especially technological ‘niche’
H. Brooks / The relationship between science and technology 479
firms whose business is based on a cluster of ery of uranium fission leading to the concept of a
specialized technologies which are often designed nuclear chain reaction and the atomic bomb and
in close collaboration with potential users, there nuclear power is, perhaps, the cleanest example
is a good deal of technical activity by highly of this. Other examples include the laser and its
trained people which is never captured in the numerous embodiments and applications, the dis-
usual R&D statistics. coveries of X-rays and of artificial radioactivity
Thus, science, technology, and innovation each and their subsequent applications in medicine
represent a successively larger universe of activi- and industry, the discovery of nuclear magnetic
ties which are highly interdependent, yet never- resonance (NMR) and its subsequent manifold
theless distinct from each other. Even success in applications in chemical analysis, biomedical re-
technology by itself, let alone science, provides an search, and ultimately medical diagnosis, and
insufficient basis for success in the whole process maser amplifiers and their applications in ra-
of technological innovation. In fact, the relation dioastronomy and communications. These do ex-
between science and technology is better thought emplify most of the features of the pipeline model
of in terms of two parallel streams of cumulative of innovation described above. Yet, they are the
knowledge, which have many interdependencies rarest, but therefore also the most dramatic cases,
and cross relations, but whose internal connec- which may account for the persistence of the
tions are much stronger than their cross connec- pipeline model of public discussions. It also suits
tions. The metaphor I like to use is two strands of the purpose of basic scientists arguing for govern-
DNA which can exist independently, but cannot ment support of their research in a pragmatically
be truly functional until they are paired. oriented culture.
A more common example of a direct genetic
relationship between science and technology oc-
2. The contributions of science to technology curs when the exploration of a new field of sci-
ence is deliberately undertaken with a general
The relations between science and technology anticipation that it has a high likelihood of lead-
are complex and vary considerably with the par- ing to useful applications, though there is no
ticular field of technology being discussed. For specific end-product in mind. The work at Bell
mechanical technology, for example, the contri- Telephone Laboratories and elsewhere which led
bution of science to technology is relatively weak, eventually to the invention of the transistor is one
and it is often possible to make rather important of the clearest examples of this. The group that
inventions without a deep knowledge of the un- was set up at Bell Labs to explore the physics of
derlying science. By contrast, electrical, chemical, Group IV semiconductors such as germanium
and nuclear technology are deeply dependent on was clearly motivated by the hope of finding a
science, and most inventions are made only by method of making a solid state amplifier to sub-
people with considerable training in science. In stitute for the use of vacuum tubes in repeaters
the following discussion, we outline the variety of for the transmission of telephone signals over
ways in which science can contribute to techno- long distances.
logical development. The complexity of the inter- As indicated above, much so-called basic re-
connections of science and technology is further search undertaken by industry or supported by
discussed in Nelson and Rosenberg (1993). the military services has been undertaken with
this kind of non-specific potential applicability in
2.1. Science as a direct source of new technological mind, and indeed much basic biomedical research
ideas is of this character. The selection of fields for
emphasis is a ‘strategic’ decision, while the actual
In this case, opportunities for meeting new day-to-day ‘tactics’ of the research are delegated
social needs or previously identified social needs to the ‘bench scientists’. Broad industrial and
in new ways are conceived as a direct sequel to a government support for condensed matter physics
scientific discovery made in the course of an and atomic and molecular physics since World
exploration of natural phenomena undertaken War II has been motivated by the well-substanti-
with no potential application in mind. The discov- ated expectation that it would lead to important
480 H. Brooks / The relationship between science and technology
them tackle the technological problems that they that only 2.5% of the scientists surveyed had
later face.” (See Rosenberg (1990) and Pavitt received their Ph.D. training in solid state physics;
(19911.) This is especially important in light of the 19% were chemists, and 73% had received their
fact that basic research instrumentation so often doctorates in physics fields other than solid state,
later finds application not only in engineering with nuclear physics predominating (Brooks,
and other more applied disciplines such as clini- 1985). In fact, the shift of physics graduate study
cal medicine, but also ultimately in routine indus- into solid state and condensed matter physics
trial processes and operations, health care deliv- (about 40% of all physics Ph.D.s by the early
ery, and environmental monitoring. 1970s) occurred after many of the fundamental
A study based on a ranking by 6.50 industrial inventions had already been made. The skills
research executives in 130 industries of the rele- acquired in graduate training in nuclear physics
vance of a number of academic scientific disci- had been readily turned to the development and
plines to technology in their industry, first, on the improvement of solid state devices (Brooks, 1978).
basis of their skill base and, second, on the basis
of their research results, showed strikingly higher
ratings for the skill base from most disciplines 2.5. Technology assessment
than from the actual research results. In the most
extreme case, 44 industries rated physics high in The past two decades have witnessed an enor-
skill base (second only to materials science, com- mous growth of interest and concern with predict-
puter science, metallurgy and chemistry, in that ing and controlling the social impact of technol-
order), whereas physics was almost at the bottom ogy, both anticipating new technologies and their
of the list in respect to the direct contribution of social and environment implications and the con-
academic research results to industrial applica- sequences of ever-increasing scale of application
tions. Only in biology and medical science were of older technologies (Brooks, 1973). In general,
the contributions of skill base and research re- the assessment of technology, whether for evalu-
sults comparable (Nelson and Levin, 1986; Pavitt, ating its feasibility to assess entrepreneurial risk,
1991, p. 114 (Table 1)). The conclusion was “that or for foreseeing its societal side-effects, requires
most scientific fields are much more strategically a deeper and more fundamental scientific under-
important to technology than data on direct standing of the basis of the technology than does
transfers of knowledge would lead us to believe” its original creation, which can often be carried
(Pavitt, 1991). From these data, Pavitt inferred out by empirical trial-and-error methods. Fur-
that “policies for greater selectivity and concen- ther, such understanding often requires basic sci-
tration in the support of scientific fields have entific knowledge well outside the scope of what
probably been misconceived”, for the contribu- was clearly relevant in the development of the
tion of various disciplines to the development of technology. For example, the manufacture of a
potentially useful skills appears to be much more new chemical may involve disposal of wastes
broadly distributed among fields than are their which require knowledge of the groundwater hy-
practically relevant research contributions. A part drology of the manufacturing site. Thus, as the
of the problem here is, of course, that this con- deployment of technology becomes more exten-
clusion is contrary to much of the rhetoric used in sive, and the technology itself becomes more
advocating the support of basic research by gov- complex, one may anticipate the need for much
ernments. more basic research knowledge relative to the
As a further example of the importance of the technical knowledge required for original devel-
widely usable generalized skills derived from par- opment. This has sometimes been called ‘defen-
ticipation in any challenging field of research, the sive research’ and, it can be shown that, over
National Research Council in 1964 surveyed time, the volume of research that can be de-
about 1900 doctoral scientists working in industry scribed as defensive has steadily increased rela-
in solid state physics and electronics. By that tive to the research that can be described as
date, most of the basic ideas underlying the most ‘offensive’ - i.e. aimed at turning up new techno-
important advances in solid state electronics had logical opportunities. This has led me to call
already been developed. It was found, however, science the ‘conscience’ of technology.
482 H. Brooks / The relationship between science and technology
2.6. Science as a source of development strategy ful in the fields of materials science and con-
densed matter physics (Materials Advisory Board,
Somewhat similarly to the case of technology 1966). In fact, materials science was created as a
assessment, the planning of the most efficient new interdisciplinary field of academic research
strategy of technological development, once gen- initially as an outgrowth of an effort to under-
eral objectives have been set, is often quite de- stand some of the materials processes and prop-
pendent on science from many fields. This accu- erties that were important to improving the qual-
mulated stock of existing scientific (and techno- ity and performance of semiconductor devices.
logical) knowledge helps to avoid blind alleys and One of the most dramatic examples of the
hence wasteful development expenditures. Much generation of a stimulus to a new field of basic
of this is, of course, old knowledge, rather than research by a discovery made in the course of a
the latest research results, but it is nonetheless technology-motivated investigation was the dis-
important and requires people who know the covery and quantitative measurement by a Bell
field of relevant background science. One piece Laboratories group in 1965 of the background
of evidence of this is the observation that very microwave radiation in space left over from the
creative engineers and inventors tend to read original ‘big bang’, for which Penzias et al. ulti-
very widely and eclectically both in the history of mately received the Nobel prize. A brief account
science and technology, and about contemporary of the development of this subfield of cosmology
scientific developments. is given in Physics Survey Committee (1972b).
Other examples are tunneling in semiconductors
(Suits and Bueche, 1967, pp. 304-3061, the pur-
3. Contribution of technology to science suit of which as a basic science beyond practical
needs led ultimately to the discovery of the
While the contributions of science to technol- Josephson effect in superconductors and the in-
ogy are widely understood and acknowledged by vention of the Josephson junction. The develop-
both the public and scientists and engineers, the ment and application of superconducting junc-
reciprocal dependence of science on technology tions is briefly summarized in Physics Survey
both for its agenda and for many of its tools is Committee (1972a, pp. 490-492). In this example,
much less well appreciated. This dependence is it is more difficult to decide whether research was
more apparent in the ‘chain-link’ iterative model motivated by technology. The Physics Survey
of Kline and Rosenberg (1986) than it is in the Committee (1972b) gives numerous examples of
linear-sequential model more common until re- the mutual reinforcement of theoretical and tech-
cently in public discussions of technological inno- nological stimuli in the co-evolution of a new
vation and technology policy. The relationships field of science and technological application,
here are also more subtle and require more ex- where the triggering events are difficult to disen-
planation. tangle.
Observations “are sometimes made in an in-
3.1. Technology as a source of new scientific chal- dustrial context by people who are not capable of
lenges appreciating their potential significance” (Rosen-
berg, 1991, p. 337) or, perhaps more frequently,
Problems arising in industrial development are lack the incentives or resources to pursue, gener-
frequently a rich source of challenging basic sci- alize, and interpret the observation, thus lacking
ence problems which are first picked up with a the ‘prepared mind’ which is so essential to fun-
specific technological problem in mind, but then damental scientific discovery. This may be so
pursued by a related basic research community simply because the organization is dependent on
well beyond the immediate requirements of the commercial revenue for support, so it cannot
original technological application that motivated afford to pursue promising concepts unless their
them (Rosenberg, 1991). This research then went potential application is fairly clear and immedi-
on to generate new insights and technological ate, or it may be because of a mindset that is
ideas from which new and unforeseen technology belittling of mere theory. A classical example is
originated. This process has been especially fruit- the so-called Edison effect originally discovered
H. Brooks / The relationship between science and technology 483
by Thomas A. Edison, but not pursued because much of the focus has been on curative technol-
he was too “preoccupied with matters of short-run ogy, anything which could improve the survival
utility”. To quote Asimov (1974, p.51, “The Edi- chances of the individual sick patient, compared
son effect, then, which the practical Edison with the statistical morbidity or mortality of popu-
shrugged off as interesting but useless, turned out lations, has been accorded highest priority, espe-
to have more astonishing results than any of his cially in the US. This has led to industries that
practical devices.” Indeed, many important ob- are disproportionately R&D intensive with a cor-
servations made incidentally during the course of responding emphasis on the science base in re-
major industrial or military technological devel- lated fields in academia and government labora-
opments may, because of the highly specialized tories. The same motivation has seemed to per-
context in which they are made, or because of vade the environmental field in respect to regula-
military or proprietary confidentiality, never get tion. However, this has not so far led to a corre-
into the general scientific literature, nor get prop- sponding R&D intensity, although there are some
erly documented so that they can be understood signs that this might be about to change (cf.
and appreciated either by other industrial re- Wald, 1993).
searchers or basic scientists interested in and
capable of pursuing their broader scientific signif- 3.2. Instrumentation and measurement techniques
icance (Alit et al., 1992, pp. 390-393).
In addition, of course, technological develop- Technology has played an enormous role in
ment indirectly stimulates basic research by at- making it possible to measure natural phenomena
tracting new financial resources into research ar- that were not previously accessible to research.
eas shown to have practical implications. This has One of the most dramatic recent examples of
happened repeatedly for radical inventions such this, of course, has been the role of space tech-
as the transistor, the laser, the computer, and nology in making a much greater range of the
nuclear fission power, where much of the science, electromagnetic spectrum accessible to measure-
even the most basic science, has followed rather ment than was possible when observation was
than preceded the original conception of an in- limited by the lack of transparency of the atmo-
vention. Indeed, the more radical the invention, sphere to X-rays, y rays, the far ultraviolet, and
the more likely it is to stimulate wholly new areas some parts of the infra-red. The sciences of cos-
of basic research or to rejuvenate older areas of mology and astrophysics have been revolutionized
research that were losing the interest of the most by the opening up of these new windows. In this
innovative scientists, e.g. classical optics and particular case, the new capability would proba-
atomic and molecular spectroscopy in the case of bly never have been created for scientific pur-
the laser, and basic metallurgy and crystal growth poses alone, but basic scientists were quick to
and crystal physics in the case of the transistor, as seize the new opportunities that were made avail-
well as the burgeoning of the new science of able by the space program.
“imperfections in almost perfect crystals” (Shock- In other cases, such as nuclear and elementary
ley et al., 1952; Bardeen, 1957). particle physics, much of the new technology has
There are two areas in which the search for been developed and engineered by the physicists
radical technological breakthroughs has been un- themselves. In perhaps the majority of cases, lab-
usually important; defense and health care. In oratory instruments have been originally devel-
each case, the value of improved performance oped by research scientists, but were later com-
almost regardless of its cost, not only in R&D. mercialized to be sold to a much broader re-
but also in ultimate societal performance, has search community. This latter process has been
played a fundamental role in stimulating not only very important for the rapid diffusion of new
technological development but also related fields experimental techniques and is probably a prime
of basic research. In the defense case, it has been mechanism for knowledge transfer between dif-
generally believed that even a small technological ferent disciplines, which in turn has greatly accel-
edge in the performance of individual weapons erated the progress of science overall. The pat-
systems could make all the difference between tern of interaction has been described in the
victory and defeat. In the biomedical case, where following terms for the case of the transfer of
484 I% Brooks / The relationship between science and technology
physics techniques to chemistry, but this pattern industry, combined with other research supply
is similar for transfer between any two disci- industries, comprised an unexcelled infrastruc-
plines, or, indeed, for diffusion among re- ture, which may have had much broader general
searchers and subfields of a single discipline: utility for commercially oriented innovation than
the specific ‘spin-offs’ from highly specialized de-
When the method is first discovered, a fense R&D.
few chemists, usually physical chemists, be-
come aware of chemical applications of the
method, construct their own homemade de- 4. The positive externalities of innovative activity
vices, and demonstrate the utility of the new
tool. At some point commercial models of The interest of economists in the economics of
the device are put on the market. These are research, particularly in the economic rationale
sometimes superior, sometimes inferior, to for both public and private investment in basic
the homemade machines in terms of their research, is of relatively recent vintage. As pointed
ultimate capabilities to provide information. out by Pavitt, economists have made an impor-
However, the commercial instruments gen- tant contribution by being the first to articulate
erally are easier to use and far more reli- the ‘public good’ aspects of science and conse-
able than the homemade devices. The im- quently its eligibility for public or collective sup-
pact of the commercial instruments is port. However, as Pavitt also emphasizes, there
rapidly felt, is often very far-reaching, and has been considerable confusion in the resulting
sometimes virtually revolutionizes the field. public discussion “between the reasonable as-
Chemists with the new instruments need sumption that the results of science are a public
not be concerned with developing the prin- good . . , and the unreasonable assumption that
ciple of the device; they are free to devote they are a free good” (Pavitt, 1991). The latter
their efforts to extracting the useful chemi- interpretation has led to a rapidly growing view
cal information that application of the de- that the generous public support for academic
vice affords. This pattern characterizes the research in the US has been, in effect, a subsidy
development of optical, infrared and radio to our overseas competitors who have beat us out
frequency spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, in the marketplace by taking advantage of the
and X-ray crystallography. (Physics Survey openness of our academic system to commercially
Committee, 1972a, p. 1015) exploit research rest&s for which they have not
paid. The ‘pure public good’ assumption about
The effectiveness of this pattern depends on basic science neglects the fact that a substantial
close collaboration between vendors and scien- research capability (and indeed actual ongoing
tific users, and between engineers and scientists, participation in research) is required to “under-
so that instruments and laboratory techniques stand, interpret and appraise knowledge that has
often become a mechanism by which some of the been placed on the shelf - whether basic or
pathologies of overspecialization in science are applied. . . The most effective way to remain
moderated. The existence of an entrepreneurial plugged into the scientific network is to be a
scientific instrument industry, closely coupled to participant in the research process” (Pavitt, 1991)
research scientist users, and enjoying the Similarly, Dasgupta has also argued that training
economies of scale derived from one of the largest through basic research enables more informed
markets of research activity in the world, has choices and recruitment into the technological
been an important, and perhaps underestimated, research community. These arguments are cer-
source of competitive advantage for the US re- tainly valid, but have proved very difficuit to
search system in basic science - an advantage quantify.
which was achieved earlier than in other coun- It is notaule that almost all the countries that
tries because of the enormous government invest- have successful diffusion-oriented technology
ments in defense-related R&D in the US com- policies (Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Japan,
pared with other countries during the first two Korea) that emphasize the rapid adoption and
decades following World War II. This instrument diffusion of new technology, especially produc-
H. Brooks / The relationship between science and technology 485
for the absorption of technology. I am rather Kline, S.J. and N. Rosenberg, 1986, An overview of innova-
tion, in R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (editors), The Posi-
inclined to doubt it because the growing ‘scienti-
tive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic
zation’ of technology is likely to offset greater Growth (National Academy Press, Washington, DC), pp.
efficiency in formal systems of knowledge transfer 275-306.
from science to technology. Nevertheless, more Asimov, I., 1974, Of what use?, in E.H. Kone and H.J. Jordan
effective use of modern information tools, and (editors), The Greatest Adventure: Basic Research that
Shapes Our Lives (The Rockefeller University Press, New
better documentation for future use of organiza-
York).
tional experience in the product development Materials Advisory Board, National Research Council, 1966,
process could still be of significant value in its Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Principles of Re-
own right. search-Engineering Interaction, ARPA, MAB-222-M
(National Academy of Sciences-National Research Coun-
cil, Washington, DC).
Nelson, R.R., 1992, National innovation systems: A retrospec-
tive on a study, Industrial and Corporate Change 1, (21:
5. References
347-374.
Nelson, R.R. and N. Rosenberg, 1993, Technical innovation
Alit, J.A. et al., 1992, Beyond Spinoff, Military and Commer- and national systems, in R.R. Nelson (editor), National
cial Technologies in a Changing World (Hatvard Business Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis (Oxford Uni-
School Press, Boston, MA), April. versity Press, New York/Oxford), pp. 1-21.
Bardeen, J., 1957, Crystal imperfections, in J.E. Goldman Nelson, R.R. and R. Levin, 1986, The influence of university
(editor), The Science and Engineering of Materials (Wiley, science research and technical societies on industrial R&D
New York), Chapter 4, pp. 82-102. and technical advance, Policy Discussion Paper Series
Brooks, H., 1973, The state of the art: technology assessment Number 3, Research Program on Technology Change (Yale
as a process, International Social Science Journal 22, (31 University, New Haven, CT).
(UNESCO, Paris). Pavitt, K., 1991, What makes basic research economically
Brooks, H., 1985, Returns on federal investments: the physical useful?, Research Policy 20: 109-119.
sciences, Workshop on The Federal Role In Research and Physics Survey Committee, 1972a, Physics in Perspective, Vol.
Development (NAS/NAE/IOM), November (available II, Part A (National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
from the NRC Information Office). DC), pp. 490-492.
Brooks, H., 1991, Innovation and competitiveness, in The Physics Survey Committee, 1972b, Physics in Perspective, Vol-
Technology Race: Can the U.S. Win? The J. Herbert ume II, Part B, The Interfaces (National Academy of
Hollomon Memorial Symposium, MIT, April (presented Sciences, Washington, DC), pp. 796-798.
by The Technology and Culture Seminar and the Center Rosenberg, N., 1990, Why do firms do basic research (with
for Technology Policy and Industrial Development). their own money)?, Research Policy 19: 165-174.
Brooks, H., 1993, Regions don’t live on R&D alone, in Rosenberg, N., 1991, Critical issues in science policy research,
Connection: New England’s Journal of Higher Education Science and Public Policy 18 (6): 335-346.
and Economic Development, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring/ Shockley, W.E., J.H. Hollomon, R. Maurer and F. Seitz
Summer. (editors), 1952, Imperfections in Nearly Perfect Crystals
Charpie, Robert A. (Chair), 1967, Panel on Invention and (Wiley, New York.
Innovation, Technological Innovation: Its Environment and Suits, C.G. and A.M. Bueche, 1967, Cases of research and
Management, Department of Commerce, January, Chart development in a diversified company, in Applied Science
7, p. 9. and Technological Progress, House Committee on Science
Frederickson, Donald S., 1993, Biomedical science and the and Astronautics, 90th Congress, 1st Session (June), pp.
culture warp, in: W.N. Kelley, M. Osterweis and E. Rubin 297-346.
(editors), Emerging Policies for Biomedical Research, United States Office of Scientific Research and Development,
Health Policy Annual III (Association of Academic Health 1945, Science: The Endless Frontier, A Report to the
Centers, Washington, DC). President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research
Ergas, H., 1987, Does technology policy matter?, in B.R. (U.S. National Science Foundation, Washington, DC) (re-
Guile and H. Brooks (editors), Technology and Global print, 1960).
Industry: Companies and Nations in the World Economy Wald, M.L.,1993, Government dream car, Washington and
(National Academy Press, Washington, DC), pp. 191-245. Detroit pool resources to devise new approach to technol-
Jaffe, A.B., M. Trajtenberg and R. Henderson, 1993, Geo- ogy, The New York Times, 30 September, pp. Al, D7.
graphic localization of knowledge spillover as evidenced by Weed, L.L., 1991, Knowledge Coupling: New Premises and
patent citations, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 108, New Tools for Medical Care and Education (Springer,
(31: 577-598. New York).