AEA/CES Think Tank
Operating in Pasteur’s Quadrant: Use
Inspired Basic Research
Bhavya Lal
Core Staff Member
Science and Technology Policy Institute
1899 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington DC 20006
Lisa Messeri
Analyst, Abt Associates Inc
55 Wheeler Street, Cambridge MA 02138
Overview of the Think Tank
• Evolution of the concept: Use Inspired
Basic Research (UIBR)
• Definition
• Evaluation Challenges
• Case Study
• Discussion: Potential Solutions
Overview of the Think Tank
• Evolution of the concept: Use Inspired
Basic Research (UIBR)
• Definition
• Evaluation Challenges
• Case Study
• Discussion: Potential Solutions
The “Linear” Model of R&D
Leading to Innovation
Funding
Societal
Basic Research
Condensed Matter
Physics
Applied
Research
Development
Technology/
Application
Benefit
Electronics Industry
Complex “Ecosystem” in
which Innovation Flourishes
Funding
Societal
Basic Research
Capital Markets
Applied
Research
Development
Govt. Regulation
Technology/
Application
Industry
Benefit
Theoretical Constructs
• Kline’s Chain-Linked Model (1985)
– The central process of innovation is not science but design,
and the assumption that basic research drives innovation is
flawed (Kline & Rosenberg, 1986)
• Leydesdorff “triple helix” (2000)
– It is incorrectly assumed that universities and industry are
the only players. Several other actors play important roles in
innovation processes, such as government, investors, and end
users
• Stokes’s Pasteur Quadrant (1997)
– There is an artificial distinction between basic and applied
research
http://nanoandsociety.com/ourlibrary/documents/bsts-nano.pdf
Stokes’s Model
Consideration of Use
Quest for Understanding
Research Inspired by
No
Pure Basic Research
Yes
(Bohr)
No
Yes
Use Inspired Basic
Research
(Pasteur)
Pure Applied
Research
(Edison)
http://www.cspo.org/products/conferences/bush/Stokes.pdf
Research Inspired by
Overview of the Think Tank
• Evolution of the concept: Use Inspired
Basic Research (UIBR)
• Definition
• Evaluation Challenges
• Case Study
• Discussion: Potential Solutions
Defining
Use Inspired Basic Research
• Basic research is defined as
systematic study directed toward
fuller knowledge or understanding
of the fundamental aspects of
phenomena and of observable
facts without specific applications
towards processes or products in
mind.
NSF Definition of Basic Research
• Use-Inspired basic research is
simply that – basic research
motivated by ultimate
application!
Defining
Use Inspired Basic Research
Environment
Government/Regulators/Industry
• Basic research is defined as
systematic study directed
toward fuller knowledge or
understanding of the
fundamental aspects of
phenomena and of observable
facts without specific
applications towards processes Fundamental
Insights
or products in mind.
System
Requirements
NSF Definition of Basic Research
• Use-Inspired basic research is
simply that – basic research
motivated by ultimate
application!
Knowledge Base
Fundamental Research
Develop useful insights from
fundamental knowledge
Examples
• United States
– Most of National Institutes of Health
– Parts of NSF – Engineering, Computer and Information Science
and Engineering
•
•
•
•
•
Canada – National Centers of Excellence
Japan – JST/ERATO
Sweden – Competence Centres
Australia – Cooperative Research Centres
New Zealand – New Economy Research Fund
Overview of the Think Tank
• Evolution of the concept: Use Inspired
Basic Research (UIBR)
• Definition
• Why is it difficult to evaluate
• Case Study
• Discussion: Potential Solutions
Fundamental Question
Is UIBR meaningful concept worthy of
evaluating differently than other kinds
of programs?
Evaluation Challenges - 1
• Programs tend to be unclear as to
whether they are UIBR, and what that
means
– Is it enough for the research to be “inspired” by
practical use? Or do users need to be engaged?
– Are most programs today partially use-inspired?
• Simply because that is how you can justify taxpayerfunded programs!
Can one identify a UIBR program as one?
Evaluation Challenges - 2
• More stakeholders, all of whom have
conflicting priorities
– PIs want to focus on “publishable” research; may
often be unaware of, ignore, or purport to meet
program goals
– Industry has more influence, and wants “widgets”
– Government wants to: justify programs to
taxpayers, and show links between funding and
economic development
How should the evaluation be designed
differently as a result of this?
Evaluation Challenges - 3
• Complex pathways to success
– Great variability across projects;
different definitions of “success”
– Process issues becomes as important to
examine and model as outputs and
outcomes
How do you operationalize these concepts into
meaningful indicators?
UIBR Follows Complex Pathways in
the Innovation Spectrum
Environment
Requirements
Identify societal/market
needs; define system and
system requirements
Products and Outcomes
Technology Integration
Systems Research
System Requirements
Integrating
fundamental knowledge
into enabling
technology
Technology Elements
Technology Base
Enabling Tech. Research
Fundamental Insights
Develop useful
insights from
fundamental
knowledge
Knowledge Base
Fundamental Research
Source: NSF ERC Program
Measures for UIBR
-Paper productivity -Partnerships
-Stakeholder
-Paper/journal
engagement
quality
-Awards and prizes -Creation of test
beds, prototypes,
instrumentation
-Creation of
intellectual
property
- Dissemination
-Development of
human capital
(training)
Cheaper/newer/
better products
Evaluation Challenges - 4
• Project data (especially process-related data)
is distributed across multiple sectors, and
therefore more likely to be incomplete or
inaccurate
– Tendency to exaggerate/de-emphasize impact
– Some data is outside of the projects; often data on
use is confidential
All of the data collection challenges of basic
research and applied research
PLUS additional challenges
Overview of the Think Tank
• Evolution of the concept: Use Inspired
Basic Research (UIBR)
• Definition
• Evaluation Challenges
• Case Study
• Discussion: Potential Solutions
Challenges in Evaluating the
New Zealand
New Economy Research Fund
(NERF) Program
What is NERF?
• NERF was established by the Ministry of
Research, Science and Technology to
fund high risk, novel research which
could lead to the emergence of new
industries in New Zealand. Researchers
self classified their activities as basic
research and proof-of-concept.
Evaluation Methodology
• We began “traditionally”
– Used an adapted linear model (Branscomb et al)
• During field work, it became apparent that
the projects were taking more complex
paths to satisfy the criteria of “establishing
new industry”
• NERF exemplified UIBR
– Our methodology needed alteration
“Platform” Representation
85
75
65
IP Count
55
45
35
25
15
5
-5
-5
45
95
Publication Count
145
195
Challenge 1: Program Unclear if
UIBR
• NERF’s Ministerial notice stated four broad
goals: Fund investigator-initiated basic
research; build critical mass; develop
advanced human capital and skills; create a
sustainable knowledge platform
• Researchers were not focused on the
Ministerial Notice
• To deal with the ambiguity, our evaluation
created a working definition for each goal
Challenge 2: Stakeholders with
Conflicting Priorities
• Identified stakeholders
–
–
–
–
–
Researchers
Research organizations
Government officials
Venture capitalists
Industry leaders
• Due to an insufficient program model,
were unable to link back stakeholders
needs to project performance
Challenge 3: Complex Pathways
to Success
• NERF’s Ministerial notice was written in
broad terms
– Researchers freely interpreted the notice,
leading to a wide range in project goals
• Were unable to assign a single or a small
set of ‘success metrics’ to projects
– Some projects reported large numbers of
publications; others focused on IP creation
• Did highlight many different styles of success
in case studies and qualitative examples
Challenge 4: Project data was
distributed across multiple sectors
• Did not encounter this
anticipated challenge
– Did not have systematic data from all
sectors
– Collected qualitative data during site visit
Overview of the Think Tank
• Evolution of the concept: Use Inspired
Basic Research (UIBR)
• Definition
• Evaluation Challenges
• Case Study
• Discussion
Discussion Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Is the concept of UIBR relevant today? Are other
paradigms (e.g. triple helix, innovation systems)
superior?
Is pretty much every program these days UIBR?
Are there particular management issues with UIBR
that are worth discussing?
Are the challenges that we encountered while
evaluating UIBR unique? What challenges did we
miss?
How would you overcome these challenges?
Concluding Thought
“Some bargains are Faustian, and some horses
are Trojan. Dance carefully with the
porcupine, and know in advance the price of
intimacy”
http://nanoandsociety.com/ourlibrary/documents/bsts-nano.pdf