EoS Flashcards
How was the “linear model” born?
- During WW2 in the US, stunning success of publicly funded basic science as a source of military technology. (manhattan project)
1944 Roosevelt commissions “Science: The Endless Frontier” report to Vannevar Bush (chairman at the office of scientific R&D) = a rationale to continue funding basic science by:
• Replacing military targets with civil/economic ones.
• “curiosity driven” academic research
• Creation of the National Science Foundation (NSF) that controls public funding other than the military.
To justify these points they distinguish between basic and applied science and place them in sequence = the linear model is born.
The US gov decided to create the NSF because of the Cold War with USSR (not necessarily Bush’s report).
Later the NIH also adopted the linear model to justify their budgets.
What is the linear model according to Bush?
Basic research = performed without thought of practical ends
Applied research has practical ends, transforms the fundamental knowledge of prototypes and proof-of-concepts.
Basic –> Applied –> Development –> Production
How did the NSF’s point of view influence other countries?
Trough the Marshall Plan (transfer for Europe Recovery) and creation of the OECD.
OECD publishes –> Frascati manual instructed member countries on how to collect data on science and innovation. Where the linear model is at the core.
France:
Universities do most basic research.
Businesses do most development.
Government laboratories do mainly applied research.
Lisbon Plan - EU innovation plan fro third millenium:
- targets for R&D expenditure as % of GDP.
- Creation of ERC agency (copy of the NSF) whose goal is to support the “frontier” of science.
Why does basic science require public funding according to Nelson?
Nelson’s “simple economics” model.
Assumptions:
- Marginal benefit of basic research depends of number of innovations it creates.
- Marginal cost of research is constant = 1. (No economies of scale).
- Basic research is UNCERTAIN
- Basic research is more fruitful to innovation than applied research.
A company will spend an amount in research, that satisfies:
marginal cost = marginal revenue
Larger companies will more likely invest in basic research because they are:
1. Longer lived
2. Diversified
Hence it has LESS UNCERTAINTY than a small company.
Government has the largest marginal benefit from investing in basic research, because:
- Country’s economy lives longer than any of its firms.
- It is more diversified.
Hence, public funding is justified by a market failure: Private expenditure falls short of social optimum.
R_large < R*
What are the implications of Nelson’s model?
It boils down to the problem of appropriability: companies cannot appropriate the results of science because of uncertainty.
All the result of the research done by the social planner (government) must be available to small and large companies to ensure that they can innovate on top of it.
= SCIENCE AS A PUBLIC GOOD.
Hence, government will mostly fund universities and public institutions.
What are policy implications of Nelson’s model?
- Antitrust policies more lenient towards firms that do R&D
- AT&T is kept private as long as all profits are re-invested in R&D.
What are limitations of Nelson’s model?
it assumes that:
- Universities and lab produce research as a public good.
- The linear model is valid –> but it could not be. See Pasteur’s quadrant.
What is Pasteur’s quadrant and why is it important?
1996 Stokes come up with an alternative to the linear model:
User-inspired basic research = practical applications that fund and inspire basic research.
Key Example: Louis Pasteur’s microbiological research.
Stokes’ put basic and applied on two perpendicular axes, indicating that Pasteur’s research is both basic and applied.
Problem: who should fund use-inspired basic research?
What is a taxonomy of research according to Pasteur’s quadrant?
^ quest for fundamental understanding
-> Consideration for use
Basic, applied, use-inspired basic
What is the “New” Economics of Science?
Criticism to one of Nelson’s model assumptions: publicly funded research is always a public good.
“NEW” Economics of Science (Dasgupta, David)
• Tacitness or codification are endogenous: they depend on economic incentives. They are not an inherent property of some form of knowledge.
• The characteristics of the reward system determines what gets disclosed.
Hence, scientists decide whether it is a public good or not.
Is codifying knowledge enough to make it a public good?
Codified scientific knowledge possesses the characteristics of a durable public good:
i. it does not lose validity with time per se
ii. it can be enjoyed jointly
iii. costly measures must be taken to restrict access to those who do not have a “right” to use it
Tacit and codified knowledge are substitutable inputs, one must invest in the activity of codifying it.
What is the system of incentives that enables scientists to produce science as a public good?
Characteristic of universities:
“autonomy”, own rules for knowledge validation
- “Peer review system”
- –> Priority acknowledgement
• citations
• publication
• admission to scientific societies
• scientific prizes
• eponymy - –> Reputation
The scientific research incentive system is a “priority” race.
Many scientists work on the same problem, but only few get recognised.
So, scientists invest a lot in social networking: conferences, exchange visits, co-authorship.
1- discuss results
2- mutual legitimisation
3- attend to learn
Creation of invisible colleges. –> Spread of knowledge –> Knowledge becomes a public good.
What is the “Invisible college”?
Colleagues in your field with whom you can exchange ideas and write papers.
They are “small world networks”, characteristics:
- Information is checked heavily
- Information is diffused until far away
Not the case for other types of networks: regular, random…
==> These networks transform science in a public good.
What are the advantages of this “OPEN SCIENCE” system?
- Science is a public good.
2. Science builds up in a cumulative fashion. (!= patents)
What some side effects/costs of the OPEN SCIENCE system?
Considerations:
- Scientists’ income (level/sources)
• Low but secure, independent from effort. Ensures a minimum number of participants.
• Extra income from reputation
- Inequality is scientists productivity distribution.
Alfred Lotka’s study: Most scientists are cited just once. And the there is a long tail, where increasingly fewer scientists are most productive. (scarcity of genius or matthew effect?)
Disadvantages:
- Peer review system creates a conservative mechanism (reviewers are older and with better reputation)
- age, gender
- stratification of institutions, that require further public intervention
- Scientists’s mis-conduct.
