How Can We Promote Technological Innovation?

15,260 characters2006.06.10

Just as a lightning strike is an extremely accidental event, hard to predict and grasp, people can nonetheless figure out what conditions make lightning more likely to occur. They can then install lightning rods and other facilities to channel possible strikes. Technological innovation is also unpredictable, but people can strive to create environmental conditions conducive to innovation, promote the emergence of innovation, and more effectively bring its effects into play.

So how can we create a technological environment favorable to innovation? I think this first requires adhering to a certain “tolerant” attitude.

A tolerant attitude applies to many issues; here I will begin with a preliminary discussion from the following four aspects:

Tolerance for “failure”

“When people set out to create something new, encountering failure at the beginning is only to be expected.” ([2], p1)

This is a very simple truth: innovation is always a transcendence of, or rupture with, old knowledge and old conventions; if success could be determined in advance, then it would only be routine work. So innovation is inevitably accompanied by the possibility of failure.

At the same time, everyone understands that “failure is the mother of success”; the experience of failure is almost indispensable for success—because failure in innovation is unpredictable, learning from failure is precisely the most effective way to avoid failure.

Although we know all this, in reality people still always want to avoid failure. When summarizing scientific and technological achievements, they only display those “successful” studies, while more “failures” are always ignored. This means that later generations often do not understand the many lines of research that have already failed repeatedly in the hands of their predecessors, and thus end up spending too much energy and resource input that was originally unnecessary on those wrong paths that have already been tried.

“Treating failure as a disgrace and as something to be deducted for can only conceal the failures that have already occurred and turn them into seeds of greater failure.” ([2], p155) Successful research certainly deserves to be publicized, but failures should likewise be publicized and, in a certain sense, should even be taken more seriously—especially those serious mistakes that caused enormous losses or led to tragic disasters. Other failed scientific studies also need more attention. Reflecting on failure and making corresponding improvements is the shortcut to breakthroughs and innovation!

We are not yet accustomed to showing tolerance toward the study of failure. For example, when evaluating Mr. Qian Xuesen’s scientific achievements, people are generally very reticent about Qian’s deeds in guiding research in “human body science,” and some who mention them either regard them as a shame or use them to slander him; these attitudes are all unhealthy. Of course, the research on special human abilities produced no results and can indeed be called a “failure,” but failed research does not necessarily have no meaning. Technological innovation needs tolerance for failure and attention to failure. If later generations can learn useful experience and lessons from failed research, then even failed explorations may be counted as part of scientific and technological achievements, and there is no need to avoid them or blame them.

Tolerance for the “useless”

We know that technological innovation can drive social progress and increase productivity; however, if one uses productivity as the goal to spur technological innovation, one falls into a misunderstanding.

The value of technological innovation is often not fully visible from the very beginning. The more revolutionary a creation is, because it breaks conventions and surpasses its era, the less likely it is that its enormous impact will be discovered quickly. Electricity, the telephone, computers, and so on are all like this. In addition, research in basic theory is the prerequisite for ensuring that technological innovation can be realized; however, the results of basic theory often do not immediately produce technological breakthroughs.

Historically, the relationship between theory and technology has changed: in antiquity, especially in ancient China as a typical case, technological development led theory; in the modern period, if we examine science and technology during the Industrial Revolution, the development of theory and technology was roughly at the same pace; by the modern era, although technological development has also been very rapid, we should note that theory has moved ahead of technology, with basic research preceding and driving technological progress. Many results in basic research can only exist on paper, expressed mathematically, with no visible possibility of bringing substantial benefits; yet precisely these “useless” studies are the crest of scientific and technological development, the cutting edge, leading technological progress. For innovation in basic theoretical research, it should be given at least as much, if not even greater, attention and encouragement than innovation made in production and efficiency. This requires us not to evaluate scientific and technological achievements merely by visible benefits,

Of course, for first-rate scientists engaged in pioneering research, winning recognition is not the main purpose. Still, for other scientists and others who try to make use of their advanced scientific achievements, scientific recognition becomes extremely important. In fact, one of the main functions of today’s scientific reward system is precisely to guide researchers engaged in basic research and applied research to choose the correct research direction. ([1], p155)

For those scientific discoveries that are unlikely to be promoted or applied at present, or that will not produce economic value for the time being, because they cannot obtain a tangible property return in the near future, they should be affirmed through some other reward mechanisms. Of course, the objects of such rewards must be chosen carefully to ensure that talented and learned people truly benefit from them. For example, as far as possible, a satisfactory working environment and comfortable living conditions should be created for them. Moreover, such treatment must absolutely not be linked or tied to the final commercial value of their discoveries. ([1], p155)

Tolerance for “laziness”

At the end of 1986, when Prigogine gave a lecture at Beijing Normal University, he told a story about “lazy ants”:

Researchers of insect social behavior have discovered that there are always a small number of “lazy ants” in an ant colony; they do not take part in carrying food that has already been found, and just wander around idly. … Only after in-depth study did people understand that this was the result of the long-term evolution of ant society. It turned out that these “lazy ants” were the scouts seeking new food sources. Without their labor, large numbers of ants would be idling after transporting food from one place. ([6], p28)

Basic research workers in human society are the vanguard in understanding nature, and are often treated as “lazy ants.” In fact, those scientists who have made great innovations are often precisely “lazy,” because innovative activity is not a piecework assembly-line process carried out according to routine. No matter how great a scientist is, if in the course of a lifetime he or she can produce several great breakthroughs during even a brief period, that already counts as remarkably impressive; the greater part of the time is instead a stage of accumulated experience (including phased successes and a large number of failures), or even a stage in which nothing is achieved at all. Apart from the necessary failures in the process of exploration, life outside the laboratory is also part of a scientist’s life. As the saying goes, wisdom comes from leisure. Especially for technological innovation activities that depend on sparks of inspiration, if one is busy all day long running around for one’s livelihood and one’s bowl of rice, under mental strain, it is also hard to create anything new.

Technological innovation cannot be forced; this requires giving scientists a relaxed and free research and life environment. Of course, in emergencies or extraordinary periods, “effectively using existing knowledge may perhaps be more important than developing information that will only be usable ten years later. In this sense, during emergencies it is also beyond reproach to transform relatively theoretical basic research into highly organized research that is less creative but more directly practical; however, this is only an expedient emergency measure, because it is like a tense and intense sprint, rather than a long-distance marathon.” ([1], p106)

Sprint and long-distance running require different strategies. In the hundred-meter dash, athletes do not even need to breathe; holding one breath and exploding all one’s accumulated energy at once is the best strategy. But in long-distance running, one must control the pace, with tension and relaxation alternating. If it is a long trek over mountains and through ridges, one needs to proceed by starting and stopping, and absolutely must not charge ahead all the way. With a “sprint” strategy, it is indeed possible to “force out” major breakthroughs in a short time—for example, China’s “Two Bombs, One Satellite” was a model of highly organized, targeted research carried out in a short period, and its success attracted worldwide attention, beyond dispute. However, highly organized research cannot sustain creativity for long. To keep innovation vitality at all times, creating a relaxed and free research environment is more important.

A university campus may be one of the best environments for scientists’ research and life, because scientists who also teach may not only inspire one another through exchanges with students, but also be given room to be “lazy”—scientists teaching on campus do not need to publish papers every few days to keep their bowls of rice secure, which gives them a more relaxed and freer environment during periods when innovation is not yet accumulating. In today’s evaluation of university professors, there is an increasing emphasis on the number of papers and a neglect of teaching; professors are worn out running themselves ragged for SCI counts. This is extremely harmful for nurturing truly major innovations.

Tolerance for “motivation”

Scientists are not all engineers, and engineers are not all robots. Many scientists clearly realize that scientific research is not essentially a mechanical activity of producing knowledge, but is more like an artist’s creative activity. What is truly exciting is not the research achievements that win numerous honors, but the research process that is unknown to others and cannot be predicted. Speaking about current issues in graduate education, Peking University president Xu Zhihong asked with some concern: “How many students now can enjoy the circular life of the scientific community—constantly pursuing and exploring, from joy to anguish and then back to joy? How many students can savor the joy of ‘I searched among the crowd for her a thousand times, and suddenly turning back, I found that person in the dim lamplight’?” (“China Youth Daily,” May 24, 2001) ([4], p 4)

From the words of many great scientists, one can feel that the reason they devote themselves to scientific research is, first and foremost, that they regard this undertaking as the greatest joy. The quantum physicist Born said: “From the very beginning I felt that research work was a great pleasure, and even today it remains a delight. … Perhaps, apart from art, it is even more enjoyable than creative work in other professions. That pleasure lies in experiencing insight into the secrets of nature, discovering the secrets of creation, and bringing some sense and order to a part of this chaotic world; it is a philosophical pleasure.” ([7], p220) What Einstein meant when he said, “It is difficult to find among highly accomplished scientists anyone who does not have his own religious feelings” (“Einstein: ‘The Religious Spirit of Science’”) is in fact precisely this intense emotion of obtaining supreme delight in the pursuit of truth.

The great mathematician Wiener pointed out: if we want to discover or cultivate truly scientific talent, it is best to give them opportunities from childhood to feel what real dedication means. Those who harbor a deep curiosity about nature and are unwilling to be disturbed by other factors must, before they are captured by the secular value of “a reward for living better,” establish early on the aspiration to devote themselves to science and not seek personal gain. ([1], p38

Pursuing truth as the highest joy should be the best “motivation” for scientific research. If one conducts research with “serving the people” as the main motivation, that is of course also very good, but the creativity it may stimulate probably cannot compare with that of scientists whose main motivation is to explore the secrets of nature. Of course, motivation by fame and money is even worse.

However, no matter what the motivation is, as long as one is truly devoted to it and pours great passion into it, it is quite beneficial for scientific research. Of course, scientists motivated by evil desires such as conquest or aggression should be constrained; but if their motivation is healthy and harmless, then whether it is the pursuit of truth, goodness, beauty, fame, profit, immortality, and so on, all should be tolerated and even encouraged. The sources of passion that may promote creativity are not singular. There is no need to impose one particular motivation on all scientists for them to accept, nor is it proper to reject others’ motivations for research simply because one does not approve of them. For example, from Newton and Boyle all the way to the present, a considerable portion of Western scientists have taken the pursuit of God as the motivation for their scientific exploration. Many atheist scientists look down on those scientists who are religious believers, yet in fact those scientists’ personal beliefs do not necessarily hinder their scientific achievements and may perhaps even promote their scientific exploration. Even a wrong goal may produce beneficial creations; for example, in modern times, “the quest for a perpetual motion machine ultimately led those devotees to a fuller understanding of electrostatics, surface tension, electromagnetism, and hydrostatics.” ([5], p33) The testing of scientific results of course can only use scientific standards, but the motivations for engaging in scientific research can be non-scientific: artistic, religious, driven by fame and fortune, and so on. Enlightened scientists should tolerate and understand one another.

References

[1] [U.S.] Norbert Wiener, Invention: The Exciting Road to Innovation, trans. Zhao Lejing, Shanghai Scientific and Technological Publishing House, 2002

[2] [Japan] Hata Mura Yotaro, Failure Studies, trans. Gao Qianyi, Shanghai Scientific and Technological Publishing House, 2002

[3] [U.S.] Carl J. Sindermann, Joy in Science—Scientific Excellence and Its Rewards, trans. Sun Jietian and Hua Feng, Shanghai Scientific and Technological Publishing House, 2001

[4] Wu Guosheng, The Science of Freedom, Fujian Education Press, 2002

[5] [U.S.] John H. Lienhard, The Engines of Ingenuity, trans. Liu Jing, Xiao Meiling, and Yan Liqin, Hunan Scientific and Technological Press, 2004

[6] ed. Liu Huajie, The “Useless” Science, Fujian Education Press, 2002

[7] ed. Wu Guosheng, College Science Reader, Guangxi Normal University Press, 2004

June 10, 2006

Latest comments

Gu
June 10, 2006 04:10:07

This is an article prepared for Teacher Zhao Guangwu’s final exam for “Modern Science and Philosophy”; I slightly altered my writing style, but basically I still wrote what I sincerely endorse. I haven’t “made do” with essays for a long time; whether it is well written or not doesn’t matter—the key is that every article must be honest.
Gu
June 10, 2006 17:17:54

I’m done for, completely dead……
Clearly, the last three or five lectures of this course were all on the theme of “innovation,” and the teachers talking about innovation had little to do with complexity science. But when Teacher Zhao heard my topic, he actually said that writing about innovation alone wasn’t enough; it had to be tied to complexity……
I had originally thought that an open-book exam where one chooses one’s own topic was nothing more than writing a paper and copying it over, so why not just hand in the paper directly? I never expected that when it came to me, I would really have to improvise on the spot. I rewrote at least one-third of this paper, changing the topic to “What the Systems Perspective Can Tell Us About Promoting Technological Innovation,” which at last managed to make some connection to systems science. Fortunately, the “systems perspective” is a sort of “cure-all” standing above dialectics, so making the connection is not hard. The problem is that the paper now seems somewhat neither fish nor fowl.
I only brought along a “Creativity Handbook” on the spot, and even forgot to take it out of my backpack. It happened to have a chapter on “systems perspective and creativity,” and I used a bit of it; otherwise it would have been even worse……

eee
September 27, 2008 21:01:24 Anonymous 210.35.96.230
eee
September 27, 2008 21:03:22 Anonymous 210.35.96.230

Motherfucker