How culture shapes science: a scientific analysis

I have always appreciated the interaction between hard science and non-scientist. As an engineer, I act as a bridge between scientists and businesspersons. However, I have gained an appreciation through further cultural study about the relationship between science and culture. This relationship is best represented as a history (in my opinion).

Over time, how science and technology has been driven can be divided into four quadrants with two axis. On the y-axis, innovation and adaptation are represented. On the x-axis, market pull (read cultural pull) and technology push are appropriate. Innovation refers to revolutionary or breakthrough discoveries that are completely novel. Adaptations are modifications or redesigns to an existing technology or science. Market pull references technology and science driven by cultural demand. Technology push encapsulates novelties that create a cultural need based on the solution that science generates.

At its conception, pure science was an innovative tool with no direct purpose to develop technology. The obvious exclusion would be medicine. Most historical science would lie directly upon the y-axis at the innovation end. When Isaac Newton was busy with Newton’s Laws of Motion, his goal was not to develop a technology or meet a cultural demand. He wished to better understand nature. Over time, the breadth of the purpose of scientific and technological discoveries expanded to provide the graph shown above. Currently, most all research conducted is for a technological purpose: electroconductivity research for solar cells, novel chemistry for new materials, and GMOs to help feed to world. One possible topic of pure innovative research currently underway is dark matter. 

This transition of the “purpose” of science (and technology) has resulted directly from the transition of the public opinion of science. In Isaac Newton’s time, science was a “hobby” of well-to-do men. It was not considered a desirable or useful profession by the general population. Over time, uses for the discoveries of pure scientists were discovered. Science then became more respected as it had a concrete “use”. Today, science is widely acknowledged as not only useful but an acceptable profession. This change in public opinion has “encouraged” scientists to perform research that has a well-defined use to society. This “encouragement” is manifest in the requirements for research funding. Supplies and space for research cost money. In order to obtain funds for research, scientists must apply for grants or obtain private funding (i.e. company or personal sponsorship). Grants and private funding require a proposal of the possible uses of a scientific discovery or technology. 

The search for funding has forever changed the goal of science, how science is perceived, and how it is performed. Advancements in science for a well-defined purpose have furthered the human race substantially and improved the quality of life and life span for many living organisms. However, the corruption of the original intent of science has changed what is deemed acceptable for research. Is there any merit in understanding phenomena simply for the purpose of gaining knowledge? Based on current ideologies about scientific study, the answer would be no. 

How science is performed and perceived has forever been changed. Whether the change is for the best is unclear. In the global, digital driven future, science will surely continue to adapt and change even more quickly based on the cultural influences.