The physicist Freeman Dyson is reported to have remarked that 'scientific revolutions are more often driven by new tools than new concepts'. This sentiment must seem like heresy to the many, who have a glamorous view of science as an enterprise, driven by an urge to understand natural phenomena, with periodic revolutionary upsurges when new concepts and insights appear to form in the minds of the most gifted practitioners of science. The quantum revolution in the early part of the last century and the dramatic upheaval in structural molecular biology in the 1950s, appear as marvellous examples of the way in which science progresses. Technology is seen as a fall out of science; the transistor, the laser and the integrated chip are corollaries of the spectacular march of fundamental physics; an extraordinary spectrum of pharmaceuticals and materials, molecular diagnostics and vaccines appear to be the consequences of over a century of unimpeded progress in chemistry and biology. Useful technology clearly follows major scientific developments. But, can technology drive science, as Dyson implies? Are there branches of science where technological developments direct the path of inquiry; where the motivations for research are shaped by the tools available?
展开▼
