Science versus Technology

Is it useful for economists to distinguish between the forms of 'technological' research and invention which are normally studied by economists and the information-seeking activities referred to commonly as 'science'?

In Discussion Paper No. 73, Paul David and CEPR Programme Director Partha Dasgupta argue that the distinction between science and technology is not merely semantic. A real difference does exist between these two spheres of human endeavour, one which Dasgupta and David argue is important to economic policies affecting science and technology. Recognition of this difference helps in understanding why the position of academic science in modern industrial societies is both exalted and yet so financially precarious as to require constant public nurture. Although the contributions of scientists and technologists to the search for knowledge may be interdependent, David and Dasgupta suggest that science as a social entity is today in danger of being undermined by the technology community's conception of knowledge as a form of productive capital. In particular, the authors' analysis implies that science and technology, as social organizations, are not substitutes for one another; that the vision which sees technology as allocating resources towards greater 'economic' purpose is a deeply flawed one.

David and Dasgupta argue that an essential difference between science and technology lies in the respective goals that the two communities - scientists and technologists - have set for themselves. Roughly speaking, the scientific community appears concerned with the stock of knowledge and is devoted to furthering its growth. The technological community is concerned with the private returns or economic rents that can be earned from that stock. In the social role of 'scientist' a researcher views the stock of knowledge as a public consumption good, not as an input into the productive process; in the role of technologist he or she regards it as a private capital good.

Each community seeks to inculcate in its members, through training and incentives, attitudes concerning research procedures that tend to further its particular goals. One important manifestation of this is the greater urgency shown by scientists in disseminating newly acquired information throughout the research community. This emphasis is not shared by technology researchers, who are free to adopt information strategies ranging from disclosure to total secrecy. Sociologically astute observers of the two research communities have remarked upon this differentiation, but they have not provided convincing explanations of the phenomenon.

The criterion proposed by David and Dasgupta to distinguish science and technology suggests one explanation. It also helps to understand how priority of discovery works as an incentive mechanism in science, and how it relates to the complex incentives which the patent system seeks to create in the sphere of technological research. In addition, it helps explain why on average there is movement of researchers from science to technology and not in the other direction. Having distinguished between science and technology according to their respective objectives, incentive structures, and approved modes of behaviour Dasgupta and David conclude by discussing both the areas of compatibility and the sources of tension that characterize relationships between the two research communities.


Information Disclosure and the Economics of Science and Technology
Partha Dasgupta and Paul David

Discussion Paper No. 73, October 1985 (ATE)