Pasteurs Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation by Donald E. Stokes

by Donald E. Stokes

A book about a new perspective on the relationship between science goals and technology. A comprehensive exploration of the relationship between basic understanding and practical use and the ways in which relationships are often misrecognized, the costs we pay for them, new perspectives on the relationship between scientific goals and basic science and technological innovation, and new perspectives. The author, Donald E. Stokes, rediscovers the relationship between science and technology with clear insights based on US experience representing the development of modern science and technology.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Technology, Politics, Business, Academia, Reference

Unknown Binding

Published August 1, 1997

About the author

Donald E. Stokes (1 April 1927 – 26 January 1997) was an American political scientist.

Reviews

[Burak · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stokes has a point. It is an important insight and I teach it in my Economics of Technology class. It is that the usual basic vs. applied research dichotomy is incomplete and misleading. The main innovation of the book is to look at two main motives of researchers independently: one motive is a "quest for fundamental understanding" and the other is "seeking practical use."

When he places each of these two motives on the two axis' of the cartesian plane, he gets a four-fold categorization of research activity (instead of the binary distinction between basic vs applied), based on whether each of the motives hold for the research project: pure basic science (Bohr's quadrant) and purely applied research (Edison's quadrant) were what we recognized before. But then, a third category emerges, in which the "quest for fundamental understanding" and "seeking practical use" are both present and are inseperable. This is the Pasteur's quadrant, and many fields of scientific/technological activity in which the two (science and technology) seem to be inseparable and un-delimitable reside here. Biotech and nanotech, perhaps areas in cryptography, ...etc. Good, useful insight, and all is good and well.

But then, Stokes streches his argument, and this is where things get quite murky: the philosophical moment in human history when Thales rejected mythical explanations in favor of logical reasoning, becomes analogous to the "invention" of "practical use" (as opposed to pure understanding). The social and historical conditions that led to the basic-applied distinction become mere ideology. This unclear and confused train of thought extends to his thinking in the later chapters. In seeking the implications of his main idea, Stokes isn't careful, and is not very thoughtful, either. Hence, where the original argument is stretched, he fails spectacularly.

At the end of the day, his proposal is to use the "Pasteur's quadrant" as a strategic tool to leverage resources for basic science, against a policy-making community that is more and more bent on seing immediate and applicable (read: commercial) results out of research, and is intent to distribute resources accordingly. Pure basic research is in danger in our world, and Stokes is not happy with this. The problem, though is that the "Pasteur's quadrant" was not a very dangerous space for scientists in the first place; what is truly in danger is "Bohr's quadrant" to begin with, and Stokes thinks that he can save the scientific descendants of Bohr and Einstein from the hellpit of commercial interest as well. So, instead of the usual Vannevar Bush argument that "basic research eventually leads to critical economic uses," he suggests that "pure basic research eventually leads to activity in the Pasteur's quadrant." He thinks he can save pure basic research per this argument. Unfortunately for all of us, he cannot.

Not a bad book overall, but I couldn't get myself to give it the third star.

[Ajay · Rating 3 out of 5]

The paradigm that Stokes lays out is excellent and it is going to effect how I think about research within development and the social sciences, but I think the book was a LOT longer than it had to be. It felt like it should have been an article instead of a book.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that the fact that I'm less interested in the history of the pure research- applied science paradigm, as well as the new compact that could be struck between science and government than I am in the paradigm itself does color how I'm rating the book, so I'll say this- If you're a member of the hard sciences, or you work in policy that deals with the hard sciences, read the entire book, I have no doubt you'll benefit from it. On the other hand if you're more interested in the social sciences, you can read the whole book if you want, but you can probably get everything you need just from reading chapter 3.

[Alan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A gem of an idea, although I probably got more out of reading discussions about this book than of the book itself. It makes a persuasive case that there is a fundamental need to re-wire our science policy, especially in dire financial times, away from the idea that research exists on a one-way treadmill, with good ideas coming exclusively from the pure sciences and useful technology coming exclusively from the applied sciences. The case of Pasteur, in particular, proves that one can solve real world-problems AND gain new knowledge simultaneously, if one designs and contextualizes their research carefully. While some might view it as an attack on the sanctity of pure research, it could also be viewed as a call-to-arms that we should expect more from the majority our research expenditures that are classified as "applied", that it should not be limited to incremental goals but actually provide new ideas in pure research as well.

Unfortunately, the book provides little in the way of real-world case studies beyond a brief sketch of the prototypical scientists in each quadrant, that is Bohr, Edison, Pasteur, and the nasty fourth quadrant that is neither goal-oriented or hypothesis-driven. And I do fear we fund way too much science in that quadrant, it's stuff designed by committee and turned into multi-site inititives that are just giant fishing trips.

I could have done without the meta-analysis of all the other historical science policy scholarship that debates the "linear" vs "two-dimensional" landscape of types of research; more analysis of actual scientists and research programs that fit the "Pasteur" paradigm would have been much more interesting.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great educational book, if you're interested in scientific research and understanding how it fits in society as a federally supported endeavor. Great for contextualizing an individual or organization's research efforts.

This book came out in 1997, the same year that the NSF revised its evaluation criteria to Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. This book make many arguments that support the adoption of these evaluation criteria, so it is helpful for a researcher seeking NSF funding to read this book to get an in-depth understanding of the basis _for_ the evaluation criteria by which they will be judged.

[Ed Schneider · Rating 3 out of 5]

Stokes, or Dean Don, as we used to him when he was Dean of the Graduate School at The University of Michigan, wants us to use a two dimensional model for looking at scientific project. Vannevar Bush had used a one dimensional model, putting all projects somewhere along the dimension from basic to applied research and funding them accordingly. Stokes argues that this misrepresents much of research. He posits that we should use two dimensions, one being the quest for fundamental understanding, running from Yes to No. The second being consideration of use, again running from yes to no. When one uses both, crosses them, the quadrants jump when you see exemplars such as Bohr, Yes to fundalmental understanding, No to consideration of use, Pasteur (thus the name of the book), Yes to both dimensions, and Edison, No to fundamental understanding and Yes to consideration of use. So far so good. Stokes then reviews research funding from the post war period to the end of the twentieth century. The assumption is we want research to serve the public by improving life in some way. No clear that the problem is the weakness of the metaphors people used. The most glaring omission was lack of any mention of government's role in creating the internet which occurred during this period.

[Adam Orford · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very disorganized march though U.S. science and technology policy. The main idea is that there is far more to science than captured in Vannevar Bush’s basic-applied dichotomy. Too true. The titular concept represents the author’s attempt to reframe the discussion along an equally oversimplified two-axis quadrant schematic. Fine, whatever. Pasteur’s work involved a dialogue between curiosity-driven “why” work and application-driven “how” work (see, I just made a two-axis schematic too!), while others may fall to one end or the other of that spectrum. There are also some interesting materials here on the history of science and technology policy’s attempt (and failure) to rationally allocate scarce funding resources using the basic/applied rubric. But the presentation is too disorganized to bring the point home.

[Courtney · Rating 3 out of 5]

I picked up this book when I heard it mentioned by Paul Eremenko. I was hoping for something business-oriented, or at least some pedogogical. This is really more a public policy piece specifically targeted at U.S. government policies in regards to science and research.

[Jen Niedziela · Rating 5 out of 5]

Required reading for anyone working in a national lab.

[David A. · Rating 2 out of 5]

The year 2025 had brought with it the greatest challenge seen to the post-war federal scientific funding model. As such, a book like this should be particularly relevant. However I found it a slog to get through - repetitive and not clear written. So here is my nutshell version:

Vannevar Bush popularized a post-WWII view that science is on a continuum from basic to applied research. This view is wrong. Stokes suggests a 2 dimensional model better matches reality (chapter 3). The two dimensions are fundamental understanding and considerations of use. This yields 4 quadrants, 3 of which are named - for Bohr, Edison and the titular Pasteur.

Stokes argues that this better matches the history of science (chapters 1 and 2) and is more useful in considering how to best support or defend it going forward (chapters 4 and 5).

If you are interested in more detail from history, both ancient and modern about the details of some selected scientific investigations (although not much on actual science) then read on. But even so I have to imagine there are better written books that cover this territory.

[Harshavardhan Sundar · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book to understand the nuances of the existing belief about "basic/fundamental" research and applied research. A question that crosses every researcher's mind. The book lays down a detailed context of why this classification exists at least in the minds of a few researchers and policy makers, and why one is believed to be more prestigious than the other. With a simple framework and a beautiful example of Louis Pasteur Donald Stokes makes the seemingly impossible marriage of use-inspired research with basic research.

[Ellen Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book addresses how the segmentation of basic scientific research for the sake of pure knowledge discovery and applied science conducted for a specific use or improvement of an existing technology, do not often result in true innovation. Instead, the author makes the case that innovation is much more likely to result from use-inspired basic scientific research, that which occurs in "Pasteur's Quadrant" where fundamental scientific discovery is pursued to meet a societal need.

[Paula Cabezas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great little book on the relationship between science and policy. Stokes shares a very clear inside into the complex world of research and the role it has in society.

Goes hand in hand with Peerless Science by Chubin and Hackett https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...

[Mark Moran · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book.
It did a great job providing a framework for how to approach and understand R&D. There are two axes of the model - how directed the research is, and how foundational (vs. more applied) it is. It makes the case in a compelling manner that foundational research is more broadly applicable than we often think it is.
I also appreciated how brief and focused the book is.

[Peter Reczek · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little dated but a very good overview of S&T policy and an alternative view of science funding

[Cristina Scheau · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book re-discussing the relationship between research and technology in particular relevant in the current AI development.

[Yisu Z. · Rating 4 out of 5]

前三章的论证很不错的。尤其喜欢第二章关于大学发展的例子和第三章关于技术的几个例子。中译也翻了下，比较嗝应。

[Liam · Rating 5 out of 5]

"This situation was fundamentally altered from the time of the second industrial revolution, in two respects. One is that at least in selected areas, science was able to offer a good deal to technology, and this trend has accelerated in the twentieth century, with more and more technology that is science-based. But the other, complementary change, one that is much less widely recognized, is that developments in technology became a far more important source of the phenomena science undertook to explain. This was much more than a matter of instrumentation, which has loomed large in science at least since the time of Galileo. It was rather that many of the structures and processes that basic science explored were unveiled only by advances in technology; indeed, some cases existed only in the technology. Hence, more and more science has become technology derived." (20-21)

"Pasteur wanted to understand and to control the microbiological processes he discovered. Keynes wanted to understand and to improve the workings of modern economies. The physicists of the Manhattan Project wanted to understand and to harness nuclear fission. Langmuir wanted to understand and to exploit the surface physics of electronic components. The molecular biologists have wanted to understand and to alter the generic codes in DNA material." (79-80)

[Jana Light · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, but not for the reasons I expected. Stokes' argument that we need a two-dimensional view of scientific progress rather than the one-dimensional view put forward by Vannevar Bush in the 1940s is excellent, but its defense hardly requires more than a single chapter. The true value of this book lies in its historical account of the development of science, first as a field in general and then in America specifically. It was fascinating to read about the events which contributed to national, political attitudes on how science should "look" or what its purpose should be, and how the subsequent funding decisions (unfortunately and fortunately) guided the kind of progress made in the last century and a half. The historical focus highlighted for me the reality that science is an ultimately human endeavor, subject to very human biases, misunderstandings, and egos (though it does a remarkably good job at rising above them, when all is said and done). I would love to see someone add a chapter to this book on how and why scientific progress has evolved in the 20 years since Pasteur's Quadrant was published.

[Igor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book on the history of basic/applied science distinction and its importance for science policy in USA since the 1945 Vannevar Bush report. According to Stokes, we have to enlarge the usual one-dimensional distinction to two-dimensional space with the inclusion of "Pasteur's quadrant" - use-inspired basic research, which is very important to preserve and fund even in the age of diminished government support for science.

[Libby · Rating 3 out of 5]

In my interdisciplinary grad program, we struggle a lot with how to make our research relevant. This book rejects the dichotomy of basic vs. applied research, instead setting up a 2D space where different quadrants represent varying levels of the pursuit for knowledge and the desire for applicability. An interesting read.

[TJ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting and accurate core concept. I enjoyed the discussion around science and funding history as well as the defense of the two dimensional distribution of scientific research. The later chapters get into details of U.S. funding policy that did not hold my interest, partially because they change so quickly that these parts of the book feel dated.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting background on how science and technology research investment may be structured at the national level, but doesn't cover much ground on forward-looking recommendations. The book seems concerned mostly with interpreting past events.

[Kalil · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read it for class, but likely would have read it were it not required. Not light reading, but enjoyable.

[Yannis · Rating 3 out of 5]

the dichotomy between basic and applied science, and the compact between government and science that led to the golden age of scientific research...

[Maikel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Five stars for content, two stars for tedious writing style.

[Ashley]

Rec'd by Larry Suter

[José · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excelente libro que cuestiona la separación ciencia básica - aplicada. Propone un nuevo framework que sirve para dar nuevas luces de análisis pero que en mi opinión puede ampliarse aun más.