What do you think?
Rate this book
Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation
Over fifty years ago, Vannevar Bush released his enormously influential report, Science, the Endless Frontier, which asserted a dichotomy between basic and applied science. This view was at the core of the compact between government and science that led to the golden age of scientific research after World War II—a compact that is currently under severe stress. In this book, Donald Stokes challenges Bush's view and maintains that we can only rebuild the relationship between government and the scientific community when we understand what is wrong with that view. Stokes begins with an analysis of the goals of understanding and use in scientific research. He recasts the widely accepted view of the tension between understanding and use, citing as a model case the fundamental yet use-inspired studies by which Louis Pasteur laid the foundations of microbiology a century ago. Pasteur worked in the era of the “second industrial revolution,” when the relationship between basic science and technological change assumed its modern form. Over subsequent decades, technology has been increasingly science-based. But science has been increasingly technology-based—with the choice of problems and the conduct of research often inspired by societal needs. An example is the work of the quantum-effects physicists who are probing the phenomena revealed by the miniaturization of semiconductors from the time of the transistor's discovery after World War II. On this revised, interactive view of science and technology, Stokes builds a convincing case that by recognizing the importance of use-inspired basic research we can frame a new compact between science and government. His conclusions have major implications for both the scientific and policy communities and will be of great interest to those in the broader public who are troubled by the current role of basic science in American democracy.
199 pages, Paperback
Published August 1, 1997
About the author
Donald E. Stokes
10 booksDonald E. Stokes (1 April 1927 – 26 January 1997) was an American political scientist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
July 17, 2018
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.
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.
December 1, 2010
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.
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.
August 4, 2015
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.
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.
December 2, 2012
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.
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.
July 19, 2020
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.
May 28, 2018
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.
December 13, 2014
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.
February 9, 2014
Required reading for anyone working in a national lab.
January 4, 2021
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.
December 13, 2016
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.
September 1, 2017
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...
Goes hand in hand with Peerless Science by Chubin and Hackett https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...
January 10, 2024
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.
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.
May 15, 2019
A little dated but a very good overview of S&T policy and an alternative view of science funding
February 23, 2020
Good book re-discussing the relationship between research and technology in particular relevant in the current AI development.
May 8, 2012
"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)
"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)
April 13, 2016
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.
February 29, 2016
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.
August 29, 2007
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.
August 4, 2012
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.
September 16, 2012
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.
July 31, 2007
Read it for class, but likely would have read it were it not required. Not light reading, but enjoyable.
August 11, 2008
the dichotomy between basic and applied science, and the compact between government and science that led to the golden age of scientific research...
January 22, 2012
Five stars for content, two stars for tedious writing style.
Want to read
November 7, 2013Rec'd by Larry Suter
June 2, 2016
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.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews