What can I say reading such quotations of yours on the understanding of “quality of life”?

“That value (…) might be more metaphysical in nature – leading to a greater understanding and appreciation of what it means to be human(…) it might simply be associated with the joy of developing greater insight into the universe (whether the insight can be put to practical use or not). To my mind, all of these increase “quality of life.”

“I would argue strongly that there is always a need to invest to some degree in research that has no clear practical value, because of it’s role in helping us understand and appreciate what it means to be human.”

Well, all I can say is that I believe we are aligned to some degree!

Regarding the questions you formulate in your reply:

1) Can science and technology lead to an increase in quality of life that doesn’t depend on innovation?
2) Is innovation that is not directly linked to an increase in quality of life a laudable goal for science and technology policy?

They are both almost million dollar questions. It is very difficult to me even think of a rough draft to answer them. Optimistic as I am, I often allow my thoughts to be biased in questions involving the future of society. That is why I desperately want to believe in a loud “yes” to the first question and, to the second one, I desperately want someone serious and responsible to say yes for me (keeping my eyes covered in the meantime)!
This sort of response of the lay public towards science policies partly explains why the Bush’s model resisted so long. Linear relations and top-down measures offer us a stale comfort that is difficult to overcome.

I suspect that the next blog in the series will go some way to addressing your points, but let me try and explore them a little more here.

First the association between science and technology policy, and quality of life. Here, I was guilty of not defining what I mean by quality of life – a rather serious omission! I must confess that, from a policy perspective, I do struggle with the idea of knowledge for knowledge’s sake. I see no inherent value in knowledge devoid of a human context. BUT, when coupled with what I guess you might call the human condition, knowledge (and understanding) take on value. That value might be very practical – preventing and treating disease, or providing food and shelter. It might be more metaphysical in nature – leading to a greater understanding and appreciation of what it means to be human, and our place in the grand scheme of things. Or then again, it might simply be associated with the joy of developing greater insight into the universe (whether the insight can be put to practical use or not). To my mind, all of these increase “quality of life.”

So I would very much place value on how science in particular enriches our lives in intangible ways, as well as in very practical ways.

Just as an add-on to this, fundamental research is often justified in policy circles as being important because it creates a foundation of knowledge and understanding which underpins applied research and technology, and eventually leads to innovation. I’m afraid I don’t completely buy into this. Clearly, fundamental research is important as it lays the groundwork for many practical discoveries. But technological innovation often proceeds without a broad base of fundamental research – and as most researchers recognize, the boundaries between applied and fundamental research are usually rather fuzzy. More importantly however, this very “materialistic” world-view downplays the role of discovery as enhancing our lives in less tangible ways – and in doing so, diminishes us. I would argue strongly that there is always a need to invest to some degree in research that has no clear practical value, because of it’s role in helping us understand and appreciate what it means to be human.

Secondly – innovation as a goal, rather than an outcome. I think it can be both. One goal of investing in science and technology is clearly to stimulate innovation. Yet as a result of this, innovation – and in particular, the products of innovation, are a very clear output from the process. One of the reasons that innovation is on the outputs side of things in the revised model is that this is so much a part of policy thinking in the developed (and developing) world. To corrupt a well known mantra, “innovate or perish” is a central tenet of most leading economies.

Yet I’m not convinced that innovation is necessarily a singularly important step towards “quality of life” – which is why I moved it out of the chain and into parallel position with other outcomes of science and technology policy. In reality, there is a complex web of connections and relationships between innovation, wealth, security, quality of life etc., and within this, I would argue that innovation plays a critical role. But if you believe that quality of life depends on more than material comfort and wealth, it must be dependent on more than innovation.

Another way of looking at this (and you can see that my thoughts are still in the formative stage here) is that both quality of life and innovation are important outcomes of science and technology policy, but they are not always linked. This actually raises a couple of interesting questions, that I don’t have immediate answers to: Can science and technology lead to an increase in quality of life that doesn’t depend on innovation? And is innovation that is not directly linked to an increase in quality of life a laudable goal for science and technology policy? From my discussions above I think my answer to both is yes (although what is meant by “quality of life” is critical) – but this needs more thought and discussion.

Finally, the arrows. Actually, I was hoping that the “down” arrows were implicit in the central flow between policy inputs and policy outcomes – that probably needs to be made clearer. So I think we are in agreement here . The model as presented is based on typical feedback models though, where you have an input, and output, and then feedback between input and output that in effect regulates the process. Blame it on my physics up-bringing!

Thank you for that. It was very kind of you.
I read your blog yesterday on the train and re-read it today (printable version!). Found your discussion overall interesting and clarifying but got stuck in the “alternative” model suggested.
I obviously agree that the top-down linear approach has (or ought to be given) an one way ticket to the sci-policy cemetery. But some elements of the new model leave me scratching my head. Let me explain:

1) You praise a less linear relation between quality of life and science & technology. Fair enough. However, even though the association between those two elements appears more diffuse in the second model, the emphasis on this association clearly remains in your discourse. And it makes me worried about science policies that might disregard the value of knowledge itself. The knowledge that cannot be immediately of any use, applicable, profitable. This knowledge needs to be also funded (and accountable!) even if it does not improve society’s quality of life in a tangible way.

2) I am not sure of the place where “innovation” appears in the model. Innovation seems to be today a condition ‘si ne qua non’ to refine mechanisms and to captivate funds. So innovation, in my humble opinion, is probably rather a goal than an element among others. I don’t know. Maybe innovation is an aspect so pervasive that it can appear in more than one stage of the model.

3) I would be much more happier if the arrows were represented both ways. It is just an utopia of mine.

Thank you for producing so much food for thought in your blog. My brain has been benefiting from reading regularly 2020 Science. It also says thanks to you.

Cheers,
Andréia

I’ve just added a “print” button to the “Share and Enjoy” bar at the bottom of posts – could you let me know how this works for you? There’s also a PDF option here.

Cheers,

Andrew

An interesting challenge – let me see what I can do.

Andrew