The concept of value is complex and has undergone significant debate and transformation over history. Such diverse and often conflicting views have had a real impact on society by shaping economic and political ideologies. Interestingly, despite the ever-changing interpretations of value, many philosophers and economists have attributed a central role to research and technological innovation in value creation and overall social progress.
Despite the impact that investments in research and technological innovations can have on society, many struggle to value public investments in research and knowledge commercialization beyond dedicating a few per cent of the total public budget to these endeavours. There are two ideas, related to the concept of value, that can help us understand the underlying reasons for this.
Firstly, humans are wired to place more value on rewards that are obtainable in the short term than in the long term. This carpe diem of value limits long-term bets, which are fundamental to enabling the development of deeply impactful technologies. In most cases, the real benefit of technologies may only be revealed after decades of investment and development. This makes it difficult for society to attribute value to them in the present. Even more, the future comes with uncertainty and many of these ventures will fail to deliver on the expected impact. In fact, science and technology investments are not only characterized by their long-term but also by their high uncertainty.
Secondly, value is highly subjective but shaped by our environment. As the biographer Peter Ackroyd aptly put it, “Value is in the eye of the beholder”. Therefore, people value different things differently. However, at the same time, our values are influenced by others, as suggested by the mimetic theory of desire. Our environment shapes and filters our perception of what is valuable. Thus, our unique values and priorities emerge from a complex interplay between individual and social factors.
In a society, a myriad of individual values and priorities interact with each other in a way that can be complementary and conflicting. Aggregating these individual values into a set of prioritizations that reflect the needs and aspirations of the community as a whole is inherently complex. The perceived value of investing in new scientific ventures is different for every individual and competes with many other investments that are also calling for people’s attention.
Beyond research and development, many areas call for value recognition such as health, infrastructure, welfare programs, defence, education, or public debt. All cry out for more public investments with solidly claimed arguments but resources are limited and budgeting is a zero-sum game. There is also a perception that the benefits of scientific investments are diffuse and spread across society, making it challenging to identify specific beneficiaries and assign value to them.
These factors can create a mismatch between the perceived value of public investments in research and their actual impact on society in contrast to other types of public investments that have clearer benefits. It is critical to resurface the value of maintaining and increasing investments in the development and commercialization of science. To highlight its value more visibly and clearly.
If we look around, it is easy to recognize that much of our current quality of life results from developing and commercializing scientific and technological advancements. Investing in science and technology has a proven track record of creating wealth and boosting living standards. However, we only enjoy today’s benefits because of past investments. To keep the wheel of progress turning and reach even higher standards tomorrow, we must continue investing today.
Another reason for prioritizing science and knowledge commercialization investments is their locality effects. Within the right ecosystem dynamics, investments in science and technology create local spillover opportunities for social and economic impact. This includes job creation, development of businesses, economic and social growth, or better chances at addressing local challenges. Technology transfer proves best at shorter distances.
Finally, there is yet another compelling reason to invest in research and technology, which is the opportunity cost of not investing. Not investing carries the certainty of non-improvement. By not investing, we are losing out on potential innovations and growth opportunities that will be seized by others who believe in the value of scientific and industrial investments.
The cost of unvalued research and transfer may haunt us in the future in the form of unrealized revenues, missed licensing opportunities, low competitiveness, reduced economic dynamism, or lack of innovation. These can have long-term consequences for society as a whole.
What are we missing from not increasing our perceived value and investment in research and development by a few per cent? How many talented professionals will develop their contributions and inventions somewhere else? What technological breakthroughs with the potential to usher in new technological waves will we fail to benefit from?
All things considered, although funding is a clear precondition for the creation and transfer of new knowledge into society, it is certainly not the only requisite. Discoveries and innovations do not occur spontaneously with just money. It is compelling to realize that direction, strategy, and perseverance can be more decisive than the magnitude itself. A connected ecosystem, the right set of talent with the flexibility to operate, and the grit to push and pivot until success are also essential elements.