Editing Technology (section)

==Relation to science and engineering==
[[File: Zoom lunette ardente.jpg|thumb|[[Antoine Lavoisier]] experimenting with combustion generated by amplified sunlight|alt=Drawing of Lavoisier conducting an experiment in front of onlookers]]
{{See also|Science|Engineering}}
Engineering is the process by which technology is developed. It often requires problem-solving under strict constraints.<ref name=":7" /> Technological development is "action-oriented", while scientific knowledge is fundamentally explanatory.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Di Nucci Pearce |first1=M. R. |last2=Pearce |first2=David |year=1989 |title=Technology vs. Science: The Cognitive Fallacy |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20116729 |journal=Synthese |volume=81 |issue=3 |pages=405–419 |doi=10.1007/BF00869324 |jstor=20116729 |s2cid=46975083 |issn=0039-7857 |access-date=12 September 2022 |archive-date=10 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220910152955/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20116729 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Polish philosopher [[Henryk Skolimowski]] framed it like so: "science concerns itself with what {{em|is}}, technology with what {{em|is to be}}."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Skolimowski |first=Henryk |year=1966 |title=The Structure of Thinking in Technology |journal=Technology and Culture |volume=7 |issue=3 |pages=371–383 |doi=10.2307/3101935 |jstor=3101935 |issn=0040-165X  }}</ref>{{rp|375}}

The direction of [[causality]] between scientific discovery and technological innovation has been debated by scientists, philosophers and policymakers.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Brooks |first=H. |date=1 September 1994 |title=The relationship between science and technology |url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333%2894%2901001-3 |journal=Research Policy |series=Special Issue in Honor of Nathan Rosenberg|volume=23 |issue=5 |pages=477–486 |doi=10.1016/0048-7333(94)01001-3 |issn=0048-7333 |access-date=13 September 2022 |archive-date=4 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221004185321/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0048733394010013?via%3Dihub |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Because innovation is often undertaken at the edge of scientific knowledge, most technologies are not derived from scientific knowledge, but instead from engineering, tinkering and chance.<ref name=":6">{{Cite book |last=Taleb |first=Nassim Nicholas |title=Antifragile |year=2012 |publisher=Penguin Random House |oclc=1252833169}}</ref>{{Rp|pages=217–240}} For example, in the 1940s and 1950s, when knowledge of turbulent combustion or fluid dynamics was still crude, jet engines were invented through "running the device to destruction, analyzing what broke [...] and repeating the process".<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last=Scranton |first=Philip |date=1 May 2006 |title=Urgency, uncertainty, and innovation: Building jet engines in postwar America |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/1744935906064096 |journal=Management & Organizational History |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=127–157 |doi=10.1177/1744935906064096 |s2cid=143813033 |issn=1744-9359|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Scientific explanations often follow technological developments rather than preceding them.<ref name=":6" />{{Rp|pages=217–240}} Many discoveries also arose from pure chance, like the discovery of [[penicillin]] as a result of accidental lab contamination.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hare |first=Ronald |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hQecpwAACAAJ |title=The Birth of Penicillin, and the Disarming of Microbes |date=1970 |publisher=Allen & Unwin |isbn=978-0049250055 |access-date=12 September 2022 |archive-date=4 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221004185318/https://books.google.com/books?id=hQecpwAACAAJ |url-status=live }}</ref> Since the 1960s, the assumption that government funding of [[basic research]] would lead to the discovery of marketable technologies has lost credibility.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wise |first=George |year=1985 |title=Science and Technology |journal=Osiris |series=2nd Series |volume=1 |pages=229–46 |doi=10.1086/368647 |s2cid=144475553}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Guston |first=David H. |title=Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2000 |isbn=978-0521653183 |location=New York}}</ref> Probabilist Nassim Taleb argues that national research programs that implement the notions of [[serendipity]] and [[Convexity (finance)|convexity]] through frequent trial and error are more likely to lead to useful innovations than research that aims to reach specific outcomes.<ref name=":6" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Taleb |first=N. N. |date=12 December 2012 |title=Understanding is a Poor Substitute for Convexity (Antifragility) |url=https://fooledbyrandomness.com/ConvexityScience.pdf |access-date=12 September 2022 |website=fooledbyrandomness.com |archive-date=21 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220621041454/https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/ConvexityScience.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

Despite this, modern technology is increasingly reliant on deep, domain-specific scientific knowledge. In 1975, there was an average of one citation of scientific literature in every three patents granted in the U.S.; by 1989, this increased to an average of one citation per patent. The average was skewed upwards by patents related to the pharmaceutical industry, chemistry, and electronics.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Narin |first1=Francis |last2=Olivastro |first2=Dominic |date=1 June 1992 |title=Status report: Linkage between technology and science |url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333%2892%2990018-Y |journal=Research Policy |volume=21 |issue=3 |pages=237–249 |doi=10.1016/0048-7333(92)90018-Y |issn=0048-7333 |access-date=13 September 2022 |archive-date=4 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221004185326/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004873339290018Y?via%3Dihub |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> A 2021 analysis shows that patents that are based on scientific discoveries are on average 26% more valuable than equivalent non-science-based patents.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Krieger |first1=Joshua L. |last2=Schnitzer |first2=Monika |author2-link=Monika Schnitzer | last3=Watzinger| first3=Martin|date=1 May 2019 |title=Standing on the Shoulders of Science |url=https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/21-128_6a36a0e5-7f30-4d63-a591-3196d4b3fb5e.pdf |ssrn=3401853 |access-date=12 September 2022 |archive-date=12 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220912192637/https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/21-128_6a36a0e5-7f30-4d63-a591-3196d4b3fb5e.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>