This paper takes an information-theoretic approach to the economics of science, extending Arrow's pioneering (1962) analysis of the allocation of resources for industrial research and invention. It addresses the questions: is there a valid economic distinction between scientific and technological research, and if there is, what implications may this have for public policy? A brief review points to deficiencies in several of the criteria proposed for distinguishing "scientific" from "technological" research, such as the degree of generality, abstractness, or practicality of the knowledge sought, or the source of the financial support. We suggest a primary differentiation arises between science and technology conceived as social constructions, and is manifested in the greater urgency shown by the "scientific" community towards the disclosure of newly acquired information. Scientists, qua scientists, may be thought to be devoted to the growth of the stock of knowledge as a public consumption good, whereas the technological community is concerned with the flow of rents that private parties derive from discoveries and inventions. The role of priority as a basis for allocating rewards among scientists, its compatibility with the norm of disclosure, and the ambiguous status of patent systems, are reconsidered from this perspective. Certain ineluctable conflicts between the goals of the two research communities point to the persisting economic need for public subsidies to sustain the scientific attitude.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers in its series CEPR Discussion Papers with number
73.
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.) This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.