Search

Many observers agree that science is currently passing through a period of dramatic transformation. At the end of his lucid analysis of science in a dynamic steady state, John Ziman concludes that there is no way back to the traditional habits of managing research, but there is also no obvious path forward to a cultural plateau of comparable stability. The new structures that are emerging are not the products of a gentle process of evolution: they are being shaped very roughly by a dynamic balance between external forces exerted by society at large and internal pressures intrinsic to science itself We believe that the emergence of HTS sheds light on what these forces are and how they interact. In the beginning of this book, we compared the effects of the discovery of HTS on the research system to a building tested by being subjected to a transient load which reveals otherwise hidden strengths and weaknesses. Indeed, HTS can be seen as a case that shows how complex and fluid the present situation has become. Researchers can no longer expect to find an environment hospitable to their work, but are compelled to create one. We have seen that it takes extraordinary effort, time, and energy to set up the conditions under which research programs can run for a predictable period. Such efforts are no longer external to, but have become an integral feature of scientists' work. Nor are they limited to the small research group institutionally at home at the university. The situation is also extremely fluid on the level of policy-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science policy is rarely considered part of the core of the science system, but is seen as peripheral, providing a framework for establishing priorities and allocating research funds, setting up institutional structures within which research programs can proceed with a continuous, predictable level of funding, and providing incentives for the wider transfer of knowledge and for the utilization of research results – usually for the benefit of the national economy. The various models of science policy are closely related to the profiles of national institutions and to the specific instruments of policy-making available to obtain their objectives. Many observers agree that science policy in the highly industrialized countries has moved through distinct phases or “eras” since the end of World War II. These phases differ in the underlying patterns of scientific and technological change, in the issues on research agendas, in the preferred instruments for decision-making, in the modes of funding, and in the modes of research. It is also said that, in the use and regulation of science as a source of strategic opportunities, science policy is undergoing a process of internationalization, in that international cooperation is being promoted (Ruivo, 1994). Other science policy analysts diagnose an increasing “denationalization of science”, evidenced by growth of trans-national research cooperation, even in less cost-intensive areas, the shift from public to private funding, and the regionalization of research (Crawford et al.91992). But international cooperation on one level does not necessarily preclude competition on another. The globalization of the economy, the wider geographical distribution of the sources of scientific and technological knowledge, and growing interdependenciesmake it clear that the configurations of cooperation and competition are not fixed, but fluid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of HTS as a research field is an example of how positing a situation can make it real. Discourse and beliefs, rhetoric and persuasion, and a vision of a bright technological future – hardly supported by reliable facts at the time – acted as a catalyst. As the concept of “windows of opportunities” suggests, when new technologies appear on the market, new opportunities suddenly seem to exist, but the period in which they can be realized and exploited is brief (Perez, 1983; 1989). In the end, unsurprisingly, there are winners and losers. But while institutions maintained their structural grip and while path dependence and varying degrees of preparedness had their effects, for a short, compressed time, scientists' vision and rhetoric, policy constructs and persuasion succeeded in collusively reshuffling some of the more inert parts of the science system, before they resettled into the familiar pattern of institutional stability. The emergence of a new research field underscores that the science system is not set once and for all; knowledge of its history is thus an essential prerequisite for understanding it: “The passage of time, and changes it brings in the factors and phenomena that interest us, are our single best resource” (MacKenzie, 1990: 7). The study of a process of change is hardly in danger of mistaking a moment for an eternal condition. But it is difficult to distinguish a unique event from more enduring developments that permit generalization. The participants we interviewed, the institutions we visited, the situations and choices reported to us, and above all the state of scientific and technological knowledge continue to change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The discovery of materials that become superconducting at temperatures higher than previously observed or thought possible opened up a new research field. This chapter examines the individual, scientific, and institutional background of the discovery by Georg Müller and Alex Bednorz at IBM's Rüschlikon Laboratory in Zurich, Switzerland. The first section places the discovery in the context of the evolution, organization, and salient characteristics of the multidisciplinary field of materials science. Section 2.2 examines the industrial connection in an earlier period of technological optimism. We compare current hopes and efforts connected with the technological potential of HTS with the bright outlook for conventional or low-temperature superconductivity (LTS) in the 1960s and early 1970s. Few LTS applications materialized and only one proved commercially viable. What were the main reasons for the decline of the LTS field? The third section presents a brief historical account of the study of conventional superconductivity and analyzes some of the factors that contributed to the new discovery, which was unexpected in terms of the discoverers themselves, the site, and the conventional wisdom refuted. Section 2.4 deals with the scientific community's reactions to the Zurich discovery. This highly unusual and intense period engendered some unconventional behavior in participants. Scientific excitement was flanked by passionate accounts in the media, which fueled public expectations about the technological and commercial significance of the breakthrough. Finally we describe the inevitable cooling-down phase that prepared the way for the establishment of national research programs. Materials science as a research field Individual scientists dominate the story of the discovery of HTS, but the initial event took place in the scientific and technological context of the field of materials science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]