IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v51y2022i10s0048733322001330.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

There and back again: Revisiting Vannevar Bush, the linear model, and the freedom of science

Author

Listed:
  • Shaw, Jamie

Abstract

Despite its age, Vannevar Bushs Science: The Endless Frontier has remained a touchstone for science funding policy discussions. More specifically, many claim that Bush ushered in a new ‘social contract’ that allowed scientists to freely choose projects in accordance with their own interests while promising deliverables for the society that funds scientific institutions. Despite the prominence of The Endless Frontier, there are countless interpretations of its argumentative structure. Building off others, I develop an interpretation of how the linear model relates to the freedom of science in SEF. I critically assess this view and argue that it provides a valuable starting point for a social contract for the 21st century. To accomplish this, I clarify Bush's stance on the linear model and show that it bypasses the most common objections against its plausibility, consider the relationship between Bush's conception of the freedom of science and the rise of citizen science, and articulate a more nuanced approach to government intervention in research priority setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaw, Jamie, 2022. "There and back again: Revisiting Vannevar Bush, the linear model, and the freedom of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:51:y:2022:i:10:s0048733322001330
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2022.104610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733322001330
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104610?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dennis Patrick Leyden & Matthias Menter, 2018. "The legacy and promise of Vannevar Bush: rethinking the model of innovation and the role of public policy," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(3), pages 225-242, April.
    2. Balconi, Margherita & Brusoni, Stefano & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2010. "In defence of the linear model: An essay," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-13, February.
    3. Tijssen, Robert J. W., 2002. "Science dependence of technologies: evidence from inventions and their inventors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 509-526, May.
    4. Meyer, Martin, 2000. "Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 409-434, March.
    5. Francesco Bogliacino & Mario Pianta, 2016. "The Pavitt Taxonomy, revisited: patterns of innovation in manufacturing and services," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 33(2), pages 153-180, August.
    6. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    7. Matthias Adam & Martin Carrier & Torsten Wilholt, 2006. "How to serve the customer and still be truthful: methodological characteristics of applied research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(6), pages 435-444, July.
    8. Mirowski, Philip, 2011. "Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science," Economics Books, Harvard University Press, number 9780674046467, Spring.
    9. Madeleine Akrich & Michel Callon & Bruno Latour & Adrian Monaghan, 2002. "The Key To Success In Innovation Part Ii: The Art Of Choosing Good Spokespersons," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(02), pages 207-225.
    10. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    11. Roger Pielke, 2010. "In Retrospect: Science — The Endless Frontier," Nature, Nature, vol. 466(7309), pages 922-923, August.
    12. Ben R. Martin, 2003. "The Changing Social Contract for Science and the Evolution of the University," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Henry, Nick & Massey, Doreen & Wield, David, 1995. "Along the road: R & D, society and space," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 707-726, September.
    14. Madeleine Akrich & Michel Callon & Bruno Latour & Adrian Monaghan, 2002. "The Key To Success In Innovation Part I: The Art Of Interessement," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(02), pages 187-206.
    15. Henry Etzkowitz, 2006. "The new visible hand: An assisted linear model of science and innovation policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(5), pages 310-320, June.
    16. Owens, Larry, 1994. "The Counterproductive Management of Science in the Second World War: Vannevar Bush and the Office of Scientific Research and Development," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(4), pages 515-576, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Audretsch & Christian Fisch & Chiara Franzoni & Paul P. Momtaz & Silvio Vismara, 2023. "Academic Freedom and Innovation: A Research Note," Papers 2303.06097, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrés Barge-Gil & Alberto López, 2015. "R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 93-129.
    2. Guijie Zhang & Yuqiang Feng & Guang Yu & Luning Liu & Yanqiqi Hao, 2017. "Analyzing the time delay between scientific research and technology patents based on the citation distribution model," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1287-1306, June.
    3. Gazni, Ali, 2020. "The growing number of patent citations to scientific papers: Changes in the world, nations, and fields," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    4. Wang, Fang, 2024. "Does the recombination of distant scientific knowledge generate valuable inventions? An analysis of pharmaceutical patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    5. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel, 2003. "Science-technology flows in Spanish regions: An analysis of scientific citations in patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1783-1803, December.
    6. Staffan Jacobsson, 2002. "Universities and industrial transformation: An interpretative and selective literature study with special emphasis on Sweden," SPRU Working Paper Series 81, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Haddad, Christian & Benner, Maximilian, 2021. "Situating innovation policy in Mediterranean Arab countries: A research agenda for context sensitivity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    8. Kathrin Sele & Simon Grand, 2016. "Unpacking the Dynamics of Ecologies of Routines: Mediators and Their Generative Effects in Routine Interactions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 722-738, June.
    9. Park, Inchae & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2022. "Tracing the emergence of new technology: A comparative analysis of five technological domains," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    10. Monia Niero & Charlotte L. Jensen & Chiara Farné Fratini & Jens Dorland & Michael S. Jørgensen & Susse Georg, 2021. "Is life cycle assessment enough to address unintended side effects from Circular Economy initiatives?," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(5), pages 1111-1120, October.
    11. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    12. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.
    13. Naouri, Mohamed & Kuper, Marcel & Hartani, Tarik, 2020. "The power of translation: Innovation dialogues in the context of farmer-led innovation in the Algerian Sahara," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    14. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Rachel Levy & Pascale Roux & Sandrine Wolff, 2009. "An analysis of science–industry collaborative patterns in a large European University," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 1-23, February.
    16. Beatriz Pereira Almeida & Eduardo Gonçalves & André Suriane Silva & Raquel Coelho Reis, 2021. "Internalization of knowledge spillovers by regions: a measure based on self-citation patents," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 66(2), pages 309-330, April.
    17. Alex Coad & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2021. "A bit of basic, a bit of applied? R&D strategies and firm performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1758-1783, December.
    18. Stefano Brusoni & Paola Criscuolo & Aldo Geuna, 2005. "The knowledge bases of the world's largest pharmaceutical groups: what do patent citations to non-patent literature reveal?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(5), pages 395-415.
    19. Monique Bolli, 2020. "Innovators in Urban China: Makerspaces and Marginality with Impact," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 68-77.
    20. Hötte, Kerstin, 2023. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:51:y:2022:i:10:s0048733322001330. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.