In Depth › Analysis and Opinion

Science doesn't meet business

Fundamental differences between science and business hinder their ability to work together to build a better world, argues Paul Willis.

Innovation. It's a buzzword for our current thinking on the relationship between science and business. Put crudely, it's the idea that science is doing all this great research and that somehow we ought to be able to translate that into dollars through the business community.

And by this model, the unspoken stumbling block between the current situation and a future where we are all rolling in gold is the lack of communication between our scientists and our business managers. If we can just get the two talking to each other, we can unleash untold wealth and prosperity.

In fact, the intention of innovation is more broadly based than that, and I'd like to push that base ever further.

The exchange between science and business is not just the invention of new products but also the critical analysis of processes and operations by science to improve the functions of business.

Science can help business more through improving existing supply and production chains than it can by coming up with new widgets. But science has so much more to offer business (and business can, in turn, enrich science) through the free exchange of ideas.

I don't think we have paid enough attention to the underlying flaw in the innovation path. The problem is that science and business are underpinned by different and often competing philosophies.

If there is a problem getting the two talking to each other, it's because they are talking two different languages. If we want that discussion to take place, we must start with a much deeper exploration of the two different camps. What are their differences in motivations and world views, and how can these be reconciled? Is it possible to foster mutual respect when neither side seems to understand what makes the other side tick?

So let's take a look at some of these fundamental differences. Let's start with the principle difference in philosophies.

^ to top

Philosophy of science

Scientists hold the findings of science as a special category of knowledge that must take a special place in our thinking. What makes science special in knowledge generation is its methodology: its evidence-based thinking.

By collecting data from the world around us, constructing models that explain the patterns in that data, and then testing those models to see if they are, in fact, correct, scientists grapple with reality in a unique and valuable way.

And here's the irony of belief in science: the process of science is devoid of belief. There is no accepting a proposition without evidence, no conceptual leap to invoke forces or phenomena that cannot be independently demonstrated to exist. Yet scientists are true-believers in the process and products of science.

There is an almost evangelical zeal among scientists and the scientifically literate that scientific findings deserve a pre-eminent position in our thinking. While the progress of science itself is not a belief system, the demand for the respect of scientific thinking and practice is taken as an almost sacred vow by those who understand and engage in it.

The scientific path to knowledge is nothing to do with belief or faith, but often the travellers on that path are fervent believers in their journey. Scientific thinking is outwardly focused: it is concerned with the universal. Scientific laws operate on scales from sub-atomic to cosmic as well as having been in operation since time began and off into the distant future. The landscape of science is all pervasive: it's the fabric of the universe itself.

^ to top

Philosophy of business

The motive for being in business is different. What matters is building corporate entities that grow and return profits. A simple economic formula of Assets - Liabilities = Equity lies at the foundation of all aspects of business life. In fact, if your liabilities exceed your assets, that's the technical description of trading insolvent, the first step to bankruptcy and dealing yourself out of the business arena.

Every corporate entity lives and dies by this formula, and every decision made by a corporate body is weighed against how much it will generate, how much it will cost and if it will increase the retained value of the company. This prime motivation of business is pragmatic in that you cannot stay in business unless you can make this formula work for you and your company.

Business thinking is necessarily more introspective. You only need to consider factors outside of your operations if they have an impact on your business or a potential to do so. Yes, you need to keep an eye on the global and national economic climates as well as the actions of your competitors, but you don't really need to concern yourself with what's happening in countries or markets that you don't operate in.

In business, both the past and future are only really relevant on the scale of years or decades, sometimes centuries but very rarely. The business landscape can be thought of as a series of islands that we call companies. They may trade with each other or they may not, but the focus on each island is the daily activity of the people on that island.

^ to top

Fundamental clash

A fundamental clash between these two ideologies revolves around the decision-making process.

Scientists hold that the science should determine an issue, whereas the business world favours economics as the pre-eminent factor in the decision-making paradigm.

A classic example of this clash can be seen in decision making around climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept that the climate is changing and that it is human activities that are driving that change. Moreover, the science clearly demonstrates that there are disastrous consequences for our planet and our civilisation of allowing this to continue and so the decision to promote measures to mitigate climate change must be made on these facts.

Scientists feel that the science should be respected, accepted and acted upon because it is a quality of information superior to all others. The economics are irrelevant or at best secondary to the scientific determinations.

In business, the decision making around climate change varies depending on which line of business they are in. Each business looks back at the A-L=E equation for its own activities and decides what to do from there.

Some businesses, such as those in the alternative energy sector or the nuclear industry, stand to improve their balance sheets by accepting the scientific consensus on climate change and acting on it. Others, such as the fossil fuel sector industries, see the deleterious impact on their business by acting on climate change and so either ignore the science or actively try to discredit it.

In business there is nothing special about the quality of scientific knowledge that forces them into an action. Scientific knowledge is just another source of information to a business manager (often a more highly regarded source), but there is no recognised superiority of science that can usurp the workings of the profit and loss statement.

There are other differences between science and business that need to be considered.

^ to top

Certainty Vs uncertainty

Scientists live comfortably with uncertainty. Scientific findings are expressed as probabilities: the chance of being correct, and generally, living with a one-in-twenty chance of being wrong (95 per cent confidence) is perfectly acceptable. It's an expression of scientific knowledge being provisional: it's only as good as we can demonstrate it to be and there's always a chance of a better explanation coming along and usurping our current understanding.

In business, uncertainty is a risk, a gamble to be avoided if possible, or a calculation for success that needs to be carefully assessed before being acted upon. Uncertainty is not an underlying principle of business reflecting the robustness of their activities. Scientists see uncertainty as a philosophical positive, business views it as an economic negative to be treated with caution.

Even the definitions of specific terms change fundamentally between science and business. Take the term sustainability. In science, sustainability is a measure of the exploitation of a resource within a cycle. How much water can be used for a specific purpose before it deleteriously affects the water cycle? In business, sustainability is a statement about the longevity of an activity conducted in the pursuit of profit.

Business talks of 'sustainable profits' as a desired outcome, whereas science talks about a level of 'sustainable use'. While there is some cross-over between these two, and a wise business will only exploit a resource at a level determined as 'sustainable' by science, the drive for sustainable profits can lead to the over-exploitation of a resource and its eventual exhaustion.

There are, of course, many other philosophical differences between science and business that hinder their reconciliation and ability to work together to build a better world.

This is a discussion that I would like to see take place.

How can business recognise the special quality of scientific knowledge and employ it to best effect in their activities? Alternatively how can the science community recognise the motivations and driving forces within business and respect them as viable and reasonable?

How do we create the common ground that is largely missing between these two disparate playing fields? How do we bring them together to build a better future?

About the author: Dr Paul Willis is the director of RiAus, Australia's unique national science hub, which showcases the importance of science in everyday life. The well-known palaeontologist and broadcaster previously worked for ABC TV's Catalyst program. This article was first published on the RiAus website.



^ to top