110 COSMOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY 



combustion takes place in a vacuum, etc.— Edison drew from his own 

 systematic empiricism the discovery of a suitable filament, and from 

 bis great ingenuity the means of putting together a practical device. 

 His product is a genuine novelty, a new "fact" if you will, but not a 

 fact of interest to science. Here is the root of the disdain with which 

 scientists not infrequently regard inventions (and inventors). For 

 example, Bell's invention of the telephone draws from Maxwell this 

 comment: 



When at last this little instrument appeared, consisting, as it does, of 

 parts every one of which is familiar to us, and capable of being put 

 together by an amateur, the disappointment arising from its humble 

 appearance was only partially relieved on finding that it was really 

 able to talk. 



Undeniably a new and important "fact," the telephone is scorned by 

 Maxwell because the general elements on which it depends are not 

 novel, and the element of novelty that it represents is not general- 

 izable. Precisely the same dipartite inadequacy disqualifies the in- 

 vention of the incandescent lamp as science. 



With the results in hand, the distinction of what is science from 

 what is technology may be feasible; but a distinction drawn after the 

 event does not fully satisfy us. Can we identify in advance those 

 inquiries likely to yield results of interest and value to science? At 

 one time the intent with which work was instituted oflFered some 

 basis for prognosis. The effort to de\'elop a practically \'aluable 

 product or process could then be classed as "technology"— unlikely 

 to produce results that duly combine both novelty and generality. 

 Attention to the site of the activity often rendered prognosis even 

 more secure: from a university laboratory one expected "science"; 

 from an industrial laboratory, "technology." Today both criteria have 

 become seriously inadequate. As to site, a few industrial laboratories 

 now have an appreciable output of "science" at its best: the diffrac- 

 tion of electrons, a new class of semi-conductors, and a new foundation 

 for communication theory are all discoveries emanating from the Bell 

 Laboratories, for example. On the other hand, some academic labo- 

 ratories now have as their chief product work that is, at best, "tech- 

 nology." As to intent, in research on cell metabolism the scientist 

 ( and his financial backers ) can never be wholly insensible of the in- 

 A estigation's possible bearing on the problem of cancer. In such areas 



