Mating uneasy roommates for a prosperous legacy:
The case of scientific research and technological research
Marc ISABELLE
IMRI (Université Paris-Dauphine) & CEA
<[email protected]>
“Creating, Managing and Practising Knowledge”
8th Annual Conference of the Irish Academy of
Management, Galway, 8-9 September 2005
© Marc Isabelle 2005
1
Mating uneasy roommates for a prosperous legacy:
The case of scientific research and technological research
 Outline of the presentation



© Marc Isabelle 2005
The research sector & the simple economics of
the Knowledge Economy
The Science – Technology distinction & a normative model for
the Knowledge Economy
Coupling scientific & technological research : the benefits…
and the costs

Why care about the French “Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique”?

Four tentative models of S-T coupling within CEA

Conclusions and perspectives
2
Mating uneasy roommates for a prosperous legacy:
The case of scientific research and technological research
 The research sector and the simple economics
of the Knowledge Economy

Research = the economic sector that produces – disseminates –
commercialises knowledge (endogenous growth, Romer 1990)
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

© Marc Isabelle 2005
Factors of production :
goods
&
services
“to become the most dynamic and
competitive knowledge-based economy in
the world by 2010, capable of economic
growth with more and better jobs, and
greater social cohesion”
knowledge
capital,
labour, …
– can be shared
without a loss
– no
– can be transmitted
at very low cost
– no
– the more it is used,
the better it gets
– no
increasing returns
scarcity
scarcity
3
Mating uneasy roommates for a prosperous legacy:
The case of scientific research and technological research
 The Science – Technology distinction & a normative model
for the Knowledge Economy

The “research” semantic space
–
–

‘Applied’ (conside-ration of use)
utility x fundamentality (Stokes, 1997)
Science – Technology
distinction to be added
for economic analysis
‘Technological’
–  profit
– money
– restricted
access
– patent
‘Fundamental’
The scientific commons
and the market economy
(Nelson, 2004)
‘Scientific’
–  knowledge
– reputation
– open access
– priority rule
‘Basic’ (curiositydriven)
–
© Marc Isabelle 2005
‘Problem-solving’
Competition and selection
among various routes
from scientific knowledge
to technological innovation
(and the reverse)
4
Mating uneasy roommates for a prosperous legacy:
The case of scientific research and technological research
 Coupling scientific & technological research: the benefits…
and the costs
Scientific and technological research are complementary…
ST
– new technological ideas
– pool of knowledge
– scientific instruments,
techniques & methods
– engineering design
tools & techniques
– training
– networks of expertise
– technology assessment

© Marc Isabelle 2005
TS
TR

– new scientific
challenges
– instruments,
equipments &
techniques
– development
of new ideas
… but uneasy to mate
–
–
–
–
–
incompatible agendas
≠ time cycles
up-downstream gap
≠ cultures
etc.

X
SR
“S and T cannot be truly
functional until they are paired”
(Brooks, 1994)
A costs / benefits balance that can
be highly beneficial (Nelson, 2000)
–
–
NICT  matter sciences
biotechs  life sciences
5
Mating uneasy roommates for a prosperous legacy:
The case of scientific research and technological research
 Why care about the French “Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique”?
Activities distributed over large bandwidth of the Science – Technology spectrum
while focused on three technological sectors
Scientific
research
Energy
CEA
Technological
research
Information & Health

2nd largest public research organisation in France
Defence

Sectors
–
some technological missions, a scientific pool
–
two divisions dedicated to SR,
three
‘’
‘’
TR
–
no difference between scientists and engineers
–
an established capacity to design, build and
operate large scientific instruments
–
ranks 4th in France in terms of publications’
quality (citations)
–
3rd French applicant of European patents (2000)
 The CEA is a priori a propitious place to carry out S-T coupling
© Marc Isabelle 2005
6
Mating uneasy roommates for a prosperous legacy:
The case of scientific research and technological research
 Four tentative models of S-T coupling within CEA

SR-TR complementarity can be organised according to various patterns
#1 Large Programs
© Marc Isabelle 2005
#2 Big Science
#3 Technological
Breakthroughs for Industry
#4 Proactive research
Type of demand
Societal
Scientific
Industrial
All types possible
Impetus
Demand pull
Demand pull
Demand pull
Demand pull or Supply push
Regulation
Public
Top down
Public
Top down
Private
Top down or Bottom up
Public or Private
Bottom up
Objectives,
resources &
partners
Planned over the long-term
Planned over the long-term
Competitive ressources
Mid-term assigned objectives and
partners
Competitive ressources
Rapidly changing objectives
and partners
Key S-T coupling
channels
Pool of knowledge
Technology assessment
Instruments, equipments &
techniques
Development of new ideas
New technological ideas
Scientific instruments,
techniques & methods
Key S-T coupling
mechanism
Long-term research
collaborations
Integration of S-T cultures
Long-term research
collaborations
Two-stages research collaboration
Geographical proximity
TS financing
Integration of S-T activities
Short-term research
collaborations
Main S-T coupling
impediment
Different S-T agendas
Time / performance / cost
constraints
Different S-T cultures
Different time cycles
Basic-applied gap
Lack of ressources
Main S-T coupling
risk
Non-sustainability of S
Non-sustainability of T
Non-achievement of T 's objectives
Stockpile drain
7
Mating uneasy roommates for a prosperous legacy:
The case of scientific research and technological research
 Conclusions and perspectives

What do S-T public policies look like when watched through the glasses of S-T
= focused on the bringing closer of public research and business firms
coupling?
– under-emphasis on the channels other than “new technological ideas”
– focus on the basic-applied distinction (not sufficient to grasp the economics of the
Knowledge Economy)
– risk of fragmenting the knowledge common pool (tragedy of the anti-commons)
 Counterproductive policies? The research engine of the
Knowledge Economy may ultimately be choking



© Marc Isabelle 2005
Importance of the dynamics of S-T coupling
– a snapshot cannot grasp the essence of the ping-pong game between S & T
« The most important challenges facing policy-makers concern maintaining
Science and Technology in dynamic balance » (Dasgupta & David, 1994)
 all the more true ten years later…
THANK YOU!
8