Serendipity: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory

Ohid Yaqub

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2841236

Yaqub, Ohid;

2016-01-01 00:00:00

S Se er re en nd diip piitty y:: tto ow wa ar rd ds s a a tta ax xo on no om my y a an nd d a a tth he eo or ry y Ohid Yaqub P Pu ub blliic ca attiio on n d da atte e 01-02-2018 L Liic ce en nc ce e This work is made available under the CC BY 4.0 licence and should only be used in accordance with that licence. For more information on the specific terms, consult the repository record for this item. D Do oc cu um me en ntt V Ve er rs siio on n Published version C Ciitta attiio on n ffo or r tth hiis s w wo or rk k ( (A Am me er riic ca an n P Ps sy yc ch ho ollo og giic ca all A As ss so oc ciia attiio on n 7 7tth h e ed diittiio on n) ) Yaqub, O. (2018). Serendipity: towards a taxonomy and a theory (Version 2). University of Sussex. https://hdl.handle.net/10779/uos.23449472.v2 P Pu ub blliis sh he ed d iin n Research Policy L Liin nk k tto o e ex xtte er rn na all p pu ub blliis sh he er r v ve er rs siio on n https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.007 C Co op py yr riig gh htt a an nd d r re eu us se e:: This work was downloaded from Sussex Research Open (SRO). This document is made available in line with publisher policy and may differ from the published version. Please cite the published version where possible. Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. For more information on this work, SRO or to report an issue, you can contact the repository administrators at [email protected]. Discover more of the University’s research at https://sussex.figshare.com/ Research Policy 47 (2018) 169–179 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Research Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/respol Research paper Ohid Yaqub SPRU, University of Sussex, United Kingdom ARTICLE I NFO ABSTRACT JEL classiﬁcation: Serendipity, the notion of researchers making unexpected and beneﬁcial discoveries, has played an important O30 role in debates about the feasibility and desirability of targeting public R & D investments. The purpose of this D80 paper is to show that serendipity can come in diﬀerent forms and come about in a variety of ways. The archives Keywords: of Robert K Merton, who introduced the term to the social sciences, were used as a starting point for gathering Serendipity literature and examples. I identify four types of serendipity (Walpolian, Mertonian, Bushian, Stephanian) to- Uncertainty gether with four mechanisms of serendipity (Theory-led, Observer-led, Error-borne, Network-emergent). I also Research policy discuss implications of the diﬀerent types and mechanisms for theory and policy. Science policy Technology policy Innovation management 1. Uncertainty, serendipity, and variety in serendipity discovered that he could induce sensitization to a toxic substance thereby developing understanding of allergies and anaphylaxis (Box Almost all scholars who have studied research and innovation have 427). Accepting his Nobel Prize, he said, “It is not at all the result of noticed that uncertainties are involved: from economists (Nelson, 1959; deep thinking, but of a simple observation, almost accidental” Arrow, 1962) to historians (Rosenberg, 1994; Edgerton, 2007). They (Roberts, 1989, p. 125). have observed that many, if not most, research and innovation eﬀorts d Elrich discovered Salvarsan, dubbed the ﬁrst magic bullet, knowing fail to achieve anything noteworthy (Rothwell et al., 1974; Freeman, very little about how it worked. It emerged from an extraordinary 1982; Petroski, 2006). Attrition and the spectre of failure loom over focus on the idea of chemotherapy (where chemicals might kill basic and applied research, and exist in both science and technology pathogens selectively). Salvarsan was the 606th preparation, the (Vincenti, 1990; Ziman, 1994). 605 before it having each gone through their own set of experiments Where research does happen to yield something of value, the results (Box 424, Meyers, 2007, p. 62). are often quite diﬀerent from what was expected. The term serendipity has been used to refer to this notion, that researchers make unexpected Clearly, the term serendipity is a label for a broad and multifaceted and beneﬁcial discoveries (Merton and Barber, 2004; Sampat, 2014; phenomenon. Levine and Richet were searching in one problem space Murayama et al., 2015). However, it should be apparent that seren- (vaccinology and toxicology) when they came across their solutions for dipity can come about in a variety of ways and take diﬀerent forms. quite another (oncology and physiology, respectively). The same cannot Consider the following examples, all of which have been referred to as be said of Daguerre and Elrich, who solved the same problems they “serendipitous”: were working on (photography and chemotherapy), though the way in which they arrived at their solution was unexpected (spillage, and trial a A measles outbreak in Indian monkeys caused poliomyelitis vaccine and error). Richet places emphasis on ‘simple observation’, Daguerre on preparation to switch to African monkeys. This led Levine to dis- methodological error, Elrich on a committed hypothesis, and Levine on cover the p53 tumour suppressor gene (Meyers, 2007, p. 161). a network that allowed him to connect ﬁelds as far as vaccinology and b Daguerre had spent years trying to coax photographic images out of oncology. Each of these emphases might have distinct implications for iodized silver plates. After yet another futile attempt, he stored the policy and theory. plates in a chemicals cabinet overnight to ﬁnd the fumes from a In this paper, I aim to clarify the meaning of the term serendipity, spilled jar of mercury accidentally produced a perfect image on the principally by drawing attention to the heterogeneity of the phenom- plate (Box 256, Roberts, 1989, p. 49). enon. I analyse “serendipitous” episodes to identify diﬀerent types and c Richet, whilst searching for threshold doses of various poisons, mechanisms. Section 2 describes how I gathered my collection of E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.007 Received 8 December 2016; Received in revised form 5 August 2017; Accepted 14 October 2017 Available online 18 October 2017 0048-7333/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. O. Yaqub Research Policy 47 (2018) 169–179 examples and where I learnt about much of the existing literature on I coded the examples according to various characteristics because serendipity. Section 3 develops a typology of serendipity. Section 4 they initially appeared as similarities and diﬀerences. I drew on re- characterises some of the mechanisms by which serendipity may occur. levant literature by matching patterns identiﬁed with those reported by Section 5 discusses potential policy implications, and the desirability other authors. I iterated between the examples and emerging theory and feasibility of measuring these types and mechanisms of serendipity. before settling on the motivations underlying the discovery and the Section 6 concludes. outcomes of the discovery as two of the most important dimensions of serendipity. As a result, eight examples were dropped from the database following development of the typology. I developed a typology based 2. Research design: Merton as an unexploited source for on these two dimensions, yielding four methodological ideal types serendipity (McKinney, 1966; Bailey, 1994; Doty and Glick, 1994). The next section will describe Walpolian, Mertonian, Bushian and We are fortunate to stand on the shoulders of Robert K Merton, whose Stephanian serendipity types and will highlight some of the examples prolonged interest in serendipity led him to chart its lexicographical history reviewed as illustrative of each type. This is a conceptual rather than an and sociological semantics, a project that began in the 1940s and culmi- empirical endeavour. Conceptually, a sphere and a plane touch at only nated with his posthumous book on serendipity with Elinor Barber in 2004. one contact point, but empirically, allowances need to be made for the I spent six months in the archive that holds Merton’s notes, most of which roughness of surface and the pressure of a real sphere on a plane. Such have not been published. It contains his detailed reading notes relating to irregularities are lost when describing the ideal type because typologies serendipity, countless clippings from magazines, newspapers, and journals are only instrumental and subordinate to the aims of the research. Since mentioning serendipity, and correspondence with scientists and sociologists there is no such thing as a type independent of selective interests and of his day. From the Merton papers alone, I was able to hand-compile a the purposes for which it was developed, I make my interests and qualitative database containing dozens of examples of serendipity and build purposes explicit in Section 5, outlining how they reside in certain re- an extensive bibliography with which I was able to ﬁnd (hundreds) more search policy problems. examples of serendipity. The Merton archive was a good place to start the search for varieties 3. An illustrated typology of serendipity of serendipity, not least because it was he, as one of the “most inﬂu- ential sociologists of the twentieth century” (Calhoun, 2010, p. vii), I analysed hundreds of discoveries referred to as serendipity using a who introduced the term into the social sciences. The publication of number of guiding questions. What are the similarities and diﬀerences Merton and Barber’s (2004) book seems to have instigated much of the across the examples, and between the various accounts of the same recent scholarship focusing on serendipity (e.g. Cunha et al., 2010; discoveries? How are authors (implicitly or explicitly) justifying their Murayama et al., 2015). Even publications that preceded Merton and use of the term serendipity in their account? I found two consistently Barber (2004) seem indebted to Merton’s work or private commu- reappearing themes: the motivations underlying the discovery and the nication with him (e.g. “Merton gave me an [unpublished] copy” outcomes of the discovery. They can help one to determine whether a (Andel, 1994, p. 648)). discovery is serendipitous or not, and also serve as dimensions along Merton, as a towering ﬁgure of sociology, had an extensive collegial which serendipitous discoveries may be distinguished as diﬀerent ideal network that was aware of his interest in serendipity. Merton was sent types. This section will describe the four types and will provide some of excerpts and examples of serendipity, one with a covering letter that the examples reviewed as illustrative of each type. revealingly noted, “I don't know what is serendipitous about this, but it appeared in American Airlines magazine” (Box 429:i4906). Merton himself acknowledged that many of these short anecdotes of serendipity 3.1. Targeted search solves unexpected problem are either understated or exaggerated, or apocryphal legends. Merton scrawled reminders down margins to check for authenticity, most of Serendipity has been an inherently ambiguous word since its ﬁrst which went unanswered because he was unable to satisfy himself re- documented use in 1754. Horace Walpole’s whimsical reference to a garding their veracity. tale about the Three Princes of Serendip combines accident with sa- However, for the purposes of building an initial typology of seren- gacity. Most pertinently, the Princes were making discoveries “of things dipity patterns, my requirement was only that the examples be poten- which they were not in quest of” (Merton and Barber, 2004, p. 2). This tially plausible. After screening the titles of the 513 manuscript boxes forms the basis of our ﬁrst type – Walpolian serendipity – discovery of that comprise the archive for possible relevance to serendipity, se- things which the discoverers were not in search of – for which I can lecting 38 boxes for perusal, and making detailed notes on 22 boxes and oﬀer some of the most well-known discoveries as examples. their subfolders, I identiﬁed examples of serendipity and references for In 1897, whilst searching for a way of extracting proteins from further reading. I gathered them into a database totalling 118 examples, bacteria for immunization, Buchner discovered that cell-free yeast ex- taking note of the main protagonist(s), what was discovered, a short tract could still convert sugar to alcohol and carbon dioxide. This dis- (circa 60 words) description of how the discovery was made, and the covery proved that whole cells were not necessarily required for fer- sources used to compile the example. mentation and thereby inaugurated the ﬁeld of enzymology (Kohler, The most common way the examples were reported was by dis- 1971; Box 378: i1652). In 1943, an explosion left soldiers exposed to covery, a unit of analysis whose drawbacks I detail in Section 5. Most mustard gas. Investigators were dispatched to ﬁnd out whether it was discoveries were reported by multiple authors; these were recorded in an enemy bombing. Instead they found soldiers’ white blood cell counts the database as a single example. Consistency and variation in accounts dropping. The link was made that perhaps mustard gas, or its deriva- of the same example allowed us to explore how the term serendipity tives, could treat cancers caused by the over-expression of white blood was being applied rather than to establish reliability of the example in cells – modern chemotherapy was born (Meyers, 2007, p. 123). question through triangulation. The most important features of this type of serendipity are the 1 2 Merton’s interest in the ‘unanticipated consequence of purposive social action’ was These examples would be better described as co-incidental multiples rather than as published in 1936. His ﬁrst published usage of the term serendipity was in 1945. Merton serendipity. They are remarkable because the discovery was made simultaneously and went on to deﬁne the term explicitly in 1948. These dates coincide with the start of its independently, and this seems to be the sole basis upon which the word serendipity was rapid diﬀusion according to Google Ngram, which charts the usage of any word found (in used. (Though, Cozzens (1989) suggests that the term multiples may be an artefact of sources printed between 1800 and 2012, in the major languages, normalised by number social control and co-ordination processes in science for resolving priority disputes over of books published annually). the degree of similarity between discoveries.) 170 O. Yaqub Research Policy 47 (2018) 169–179 unanticipated and unexpected nature of the discovery, the fact that emulation, he noticed a mysterious glow, a new form of radiation he investigators were searching in one problem space but made their dis- called X-rays (Box 427; Box 378; Shapiro, 1986). covery in another. Many drug discoveries also ﬁt the Bushian type of serendipity. In 1844, Wells witnessed a man who, under the inﬂuence of laughing gas, injured his leg but claimed not to feel any pain; Wells used the com- 3.2. Targeted search solves problem-in-hand via unexpected route pound as an anaesthetic thereafter. In 1947, Dr Gay prescribed a new antihistamine for a patient suﬀering from hives. The patient returned Merton’sdeﬁnition extended Walpole’s conception of serendipity by and reported that, “by the way, doctor, this is the ﬁrst time I haven’t asking not only what the original research motivations were, but also become dizzy or nauseated on the ride to your oﬃce.” (Box 424; Box what the signiﬁcance of the discovery was for further research. By 427: i1634, i4873). Dramamine became a motion sickness preventive. drawing attention to the outcome, Merton concludes that “Walpole’s Similarly, in 1980, Minoxidil was being used as a treatment for high emphatic insistence that his term must be limited to discoveries that blood pressure when it was discovered to have hair retention and re- were not at all in quest of,”– i.e. that no intended discovery can qualify generation properties. Novocaine and Xylocaine were eﬀective anaes- as serendipity – means that Walpole’s original deﬁnition “is too re- thetics that were also discovered to be antiarrhythmic (Roberts 1989, p. strictive a concept of the role of serendipity in science” (Box 428: 200). i1594). However, such re-purposing of drugs approved for existing uses into Thus, I distinguish Mertonian serendipity where the discovery may multi-purpose drugs should be distinguished from re-developed drugs that lead to the solution of a given problem via an unexpected route, as were being developed for one use, but whose development path distinct from the more traditional type of serendipity where the dis- changed in favour of another use. The latter, re-developed drugs, would covery leads to the solution of an entirely diﬀerent problem. be Walpolian type serendipity taking eﬀect before a drug has been Serendipitous moments in a research program might have played an approved. The infamous example is Viagra, which in the mid-1990s incidental but signiﬁcant role in the solution of a problem that was Pﬁzer was developing for angina, when clinical trials reported (besides targeted from the outset. its poor eﬃcacy) that the drug could treat patients with erectile dys- Some well-known examples ﬁt this type. By 1837, Goodyear had function. Another example is imipramine, an ineﬀective schizophrenia been searching for a decade for a way to make rubber thermostable, treatment found to work as an antidepressant (Box 424; Box when he accidentally allowed a mixture of sulphur and rubber to touch 427:i4873). Note the way in which both these drugs remained single- a hot stove and discovered vulcanisation (Box 378: i1667; Halacy, purpose, which distinguish them from Bushian serendipity. 1967). In 1948, Cade speculated that mania might be caused by ab- normal metabolism of uric acid. He injected uric acid in the form of a lithium salt and observed dramatic therapeutic responses. However, it 3.4. Untargeted search solves a later problem emerged that the uric acid part of the drug had nothing to do with its eﬀectiveness. It was only the fact that a lithium salt of the acid was used Within un-targeted research, I believe there is another type of ser- that was responsible for the eﬀect, other lithium salts were equally good endipity, whose deﬁning feature is when un-targeted research comes (Box 427: i4873). upon a new unsought-for problem and unsought-for solution. Neither the problem nor the solution existed prior to the serendipitous episode. 3.3. Untargeted search solves an immediate problem Paula Stephan describes it as “ﬁnding answers to questions not yet posed” (Stephan 2010: p232). Stephanian discovery serves to pique There is a further direction in which I can build on Merton’sdeﬁ- one’s curiosity, even though it does not directly solve an immediate nition to open up other types of serendipity. There may be no particular problem, and holds interest until it solves a later problem. problem in mind, perhaps because the research is at an exploratory or In 1903, Benedictus dropped a ﬂask. The ﬂask shattered but he basic stage and more concept formation may be needed to develop noticed to his surprise that the fragments of glass did not ﬂy apart, the detailed hypotheses. Or, the professed goals and outcomes of the re- ﬂask remained almost in its original shape. He found that it had a ﬁlm search may be so far away that the project objectives might as well be on the inside to which the broken pieces of glass had adhered. He called un-targeted. Vannevar Bush claimed that pertinent discoveries realised that this ﬁlm had come from the evaporation of a solution of “often come from remote and unexpected sources” (Bush, 1945, p. 14; collodion (cellulose nitrate, prepared from cotton and nitric acid) which see also Balconi et al., 2010). the ﬂask had contained. After the incident, Benedictus learned of au- The deﬁning feature of this Bushian type is that the discovery leads tomobile accidents, with serious consequences from ﬂying glass. This to a not sought-for solution because the research was un-targeted, or was the problem for which his solution was waiting, and his non- was not research at all. In an analogy to shopping, one may visit shops shattering ﬂask became safety glass (Roberts, 1989, p. 156). without intending to buy anything, but in the course of browsing be In an another example, in 1820, Oersted was heating a wire by an reminded of one’s needs and how a product may serve those needs. electric current when he noticed that every time the current was In 1879, as part of a research program into the general properties of switched on, a nearby compass needle was moved. When Oersted’s sugar (as opposed to one with a speciﬁc goal), Fahlberg discovered reported this discovery, it caused a “stir” (Box 424; Kohn, 1989, p. 12) saccharine, an artiﬁcial sweetener, after noticing a sweet taste on his but did not immediately solve any conundrums; it was merely received hands (Box 427: i1634). In 1895, Roentgen was preparing to recreate as an interesting new phenomenon. However, the discovery would go phenomena documented by Crookes, and tinker with them. In his on to solve problems that were yet to be formulated, a decade later, by the likes of Faraday and Morse who would identify electromagnetic “The pattern refers to the experience of observing an unanticipated, anomalous, and induction and develop the telegraph system (Box 429:i4926). strategic datum which becomes the occasion for developing new theory” (Merton, 1948, p. 506). Serendipity is one of four ways in which Merton notes that empirical research can inﬂuence theory (see Heinze et al., 2013, p. 830 for the others). He noticed that his sandwich tasted sweeter than usual, and returned to the labora- It is possible for a drug fall into both categories at diﬀerent times. For example, as- tory where he tasted everything on his worktable—all the vials, beakers, and dishes he used for his experiments. He found the source: an overboiled beaker in which o-sulfo- pirin was ﬁrst prepared as an antiseptic but was found to be ineﬀective and re-developed into an analgesic and antifebrile. It is now being investigated as a multi-purpose drug for benzoic acid had reacted with phosphorus (V) chloride and ammonia, producing benzoic sulﬁnide. Though Falhberg had previously synthesized the compound by another method, suppressing tumors and cardiac arrest (Roberts, 1989, p. 195; Meyers, 2007, p. 149) he had no reason to taste the result. Once he tasted the value of the substance he took out For Stephanian serendipity, one might invert Plato’s well-known phrase, ‘Necessity is a patent for it in 1885. the mother of invention’,to ‘Invention is the mother of necessity’. 171 O. Yaqub Research Policy 47 (2018) 169–179 3.5. Towards a taxonomy In summary, one can conceive of at least four types of serendipity which emerge from the nature of the inquiry and the solution. The dimensions of this typology seem to resonate with other literature (Nightingale and Scott, 2007; Stokes, 1997; Senker, 1991). In parti- cular, the emphasis on outcome as well as motivation is consistent with Calvert’s (2004) study of what constitutes ‘basic research’. Her inter- views with scientists and policymakers reveal diﬀerent usages of the Fig. 1. A typology of serendipity in research. term and a range of views, which she categorised into six dimensions of variation. The two dimensions most frequently referred to by inter- viewees were epistemological (nature of the knowledge produced) and approximations reveal nothing but deviations from the construct. This is not intentional (aims of research). Calvert argues that ambiguity over its only to be expected, but is to be sought after, for it is the basis of the value of meaning (i.e. choice over which dimensions to emphasise) gives the the typological method. These deviations will be relative… If degree of term its political character, and understanding the diﬀerent reasons for deviation is to be determined repetitively and comparatively, then the base deﬁning in diﬀerent ways could lead to a more enlightened discussion measurement (the type) must be held constant. The relations between the (2004:266). Whilst there are parallels that can be drawn for serendipity elements (criteria) of the type are postulated relations; therefore they may and its political economy, I do not mean to suggest that serendipity is be legitimately be held constant”. restricted to, or synonymous with, basic science. In the next section, it is these “relations between the elements Basic and applied research categories may not necessarily be helpful (criteria)” that I explore as underlying mechanisms of serendipity. In or illuminating for studying serendipity. Findings that unexpectedly doing so, I address Doty and Glick’s (1994, p. 230) concern that “most turned out to be very signiﬁcant for basic science have often emerged typological theories are inadequately developed because the causal from applied work on practical problems. Pasteur’s work in the French processes operating within each type are not fully speciﬁed” leading to wine industry helped establish bacteriology (Box 427), Carnot’seﬀorts “over-emphasis on describing the typology and under-emphasis on to improve steam engine eﬃciency helped to bring about thermo- developing the theory” Doty and Glick (1994, p. 231). dynamics, Bell Lab’seﬀorts to remove static hiss from telephones helped to create radio astronomy (Box 424). Sometimes the switch 4. Factors and mechanisms of serendipity between science and technology can be quite immediate (Nightingale, 2014), suggesting that our discussion of serendipity can pertain to I suggested that serendipity can be identiﬁed by examining research both. motivations and research outcomes, and may take one of four types: Drawing boundaries between the quadrants in Fig. 1 is likely to be Walpolian, Mertonian, Bushian and Stephanian. However, the typology challenging in practice. In Merton’s private notes, he alludes to this tells us little about the mechanisms underlying these serendipity types. when he observes that “It seems customary to speak of serendipitous In my search for mechanisms, I compared hundreds of examples of discoveries as though they were wholly unanticipated or accidental… serendipity for similarities and diﬀerences that help to describe how [but] there are degrees of serendipity.” (Box428: i1594). Though I serendipity happens. Unlike types of serendipity, which were mutually distinguish between solutions for problems that were either given or exclusive (and whose boundaries were somewhat blurry), I believe each wholly diﬀerent, problems can in practice be partially solved, or partly of these mechanisms of serendipity is to a degree necessary (none are abandoned in favour of another. With a drug, I may look to its formally likely to be suﬃcient on their own). approved indication to decide whether the problem solved was given or Four consistently reappearing themes emerged from the comparative wholly diﬀerent, but in most other cases such a convenient marker for analysis. Serendipity may be theory-led, observer-led, error-borne or network- sanctioned use may not be available. So the possibility that a discovery emergent. Serendipity may become conspicuous because the growth of can displace or solve the original problem to diﬀering degrees strikes us theory makes it stand out to any given observer; or serendipity may be ob- as an important feature of serendipity for empirical inquiry. servable only to some with certain tools, techniques and attributes; or ser- Similarly, whilst I distinguish between targeted and un-targeted endipity may emerge following methodological deviations, errors, and spil- search, in practice, lines of enquiry may be much harder to demarcate. lages; or serendipity may involve a network of actors. This section will One can have organisations and statistical categories dedicated to un- describe the four mechanisms in moredetailand providesomeofthe ex- targeted research, but there can still exist diﬀering degrees of targeted amples reviewed as illustrative of each mechanism. enquiry. For example, Fahlberg’s discovery of artiﬁcial sweetener was made as part of a research program that aﬀorded him a broad and 4.1. Serendipity and theory general remit, but if one takes note that the program was established and maintained by a sugar import company, the inquiry seems dis- This mechanism is about the idea that serendipity requires deviation from tinctly more targeted. theoretical expectations. Without some contrast to theory an event cannot be Although it may be diﬃcult to separate out strict classes of serendipity serendipitous, it is mere chance. Louis Pasteur considered chance to be a by theoretical discussion alone, these two dimensions seem to be non-trivial. subordinate of theoretical advance: “Without theory, practice is but routine They provide us with at least four types of serendipity to help guide further born of habit.” (Radot, cited in Merton and Barber, 2004, p. 162). Pasteur empirical inquiry. McKinney (1966, p. 13) oﬀers guidance on how this illustrates with his account of telegraph development, and in doing so makes might be done: “The constructed type is a pragmatic expedient and does not one of the most quoted remarks about serendipity. purport to be empirically valid. The main purpose it serves is to furnish a “Oersted held in his hands a piece of copper wire, joined by its ex- means by which concrete occurrences can be compared, potentially mea- tremities to the two poles of a Volta pile. On his table was a sured, and comprehended. The comparison and measurement of empirical 7 8 For example, in the serendipitous development of the pacemaker, Greatbatch and a As Keynes (1921, p. 10) noted, “I say, if a coin falls head it is ‘by chance’, whereas its physician were working to ﬁnd a way to record heartbeats when Greatbatch happened to falling heads is not at all improbable… The fall of the coin is a chance event if our grab the wrong resistor. The error meant that the device was simulating the heartbeat, not knowledge of the circumstances of the throw is irrelevant to our expectation of the pos- recording it. The pacemaker was deployed, less to record and study the heartbeat than to sible alternative results. If the number of alternatives is very large, then the occurrence of intervene and oﬀer a technological therapy for those with an irregular heartbeat. the event is not only subject to chance but is also very improbable…”. 172 O. Yaqub Research Policy 47 (2018) 169–179 magnetised needle on its pivot and he saw (by chance you will say, Routines and systems for observation might support serendipity in but chance only favours the mind which is prepared) the needle some individuals rather than others. Darwin is admired not only for his move and take up a position quite diﬀerent from the one assigned to eponymous theoretical contributions but also for the way he system- it by terrestrial magnetism.” atically documented his observations, recording even the most trivial of his musings, and for curating and cataloguing a vast collection of spe- Theory or experience allows any given observer to identify the cimens. Ecologists and astronomers pay particular attention to catalo- serendipitous episode as being incongruent with predictions and ex- guing what they observe. Pathologists have a systematic approach to pectations. A 1963 Science article (Box 378; i1641) describes the the- examining a corpse, a system so prized that the completeness of ob- oretical lead-up to the discovery of uranium ﬁssion: servation might even be considered by some to take precedence over “The experimenters had posed an interesting, clear-cut question, ‘Is establishing cause of death. radium a product of irradiation of uranium?’ They devised an ap- For example, Warren who discovered gut bacteria, was a pathologist propriate set of experiments to answer the query. The result was sensitised not to current theory on gastroenterology but to bacteria certain to be important, whatever it was. If they had proved that repeatedly cropping up in biopsy. In an example where a nurse noticed radium was a product, the result would have been considered very that jaundiced infants placed near the window in the sunshine re- important, though not so signiﬁcant as what they actually found.” covered faster, she did so in a hospital – a highly observed and struc- (p1177). tured environment (Roberts, 1989, p. 136). The nurse was presumably in the habit of reporting her observations to others as part of her pro- A more recent example is the discovery of angiostatins: Folkman was fession, her report was followed up and UV light for neonatal infants is investigating potential substitutes for blood in transfusions when he ob- now standard. Similarly, in another example, insulin was discovered served that tumors often stopped growing when they were quite small when a technician noticed the swarm of ﬂies that gathered around the (Meyers, 2007, p. 145). He theorised that tumors needed to develop their urine of pancreas-less animals (because it was later found to be loaded own blood vessels to grow bigger. The search for blood vessel growth in- with sugar) (Box 378: i1666; Box 424). So, in various forms of inquiry, hibitors was now a given when Folkman's team noticed a fungus that had one can see that traditions, systems and protocols for observation have contaminated a culture dish of endothelial cells and arrested their growth. A emerged. In the cases of the pathologist, nurse and technician noted second more eﬀective inhibitor was discovered by a chance encounter at a above, it was not so much theory as it was the observation system that conference. As Pasteur might have noted, chance played a subordinate, if helped them to notice their discoveries. not subsequent, role to theory development in this episode. The growth of Observations are usually mediated by instruments, and the devel- theory may guide the observer on where to look, restricting the scope for opment and use of instruments themselves play an important role in their possible observations and inferences. serendipity. This is not necessarily the testing of theories nor the re- plication of experiments, but rather the trying out of new practices. Price (1984) notes that a great deal of laboratory work involves prac- 4.2. Serendipity and individuals ticing old techniques, tinkering and ﬁddling to produce a new tech- nique or ‘research technology’ (Joerges and Shinn, 2001), then using it Even within a given scientiﬁc or technological paradigm (Kuhn, on everything in sight. Such work, without being strongly anchored to 1962; Dosi, 1982), there is a varied distribution of skills, techniques and any particular theory, means “experimentation has a life of its own” talents across individuals, and unequal access to diﬀerent kinds of (Hacking, 1983, p. 250), and occasionally, the experimenter will pro- equipment, instruments and other resources. I discuss two factors, ob- duce qualitatively new eﬀects (Rheinberger, 1997). Heinze et al. (2013) servation routines and instrumentation, that may aﬀect an observer’s oﬀer evidence for this line of thought with a sophisticated analysis of perceptiveness (variation in what individuals notice). These stand as the follow-up research to two Nobel Prize-winning breakthroughs. possible factors of serendipity distinct from the prepared mind theme Instruments can be developed and used quite free from theory, discussed previously. playfully even. Fleming, for example, would streak his agar plates with Individual attributes may aﬀect perceptiveness for serendipity. For bacteria that would yield diﬀerent coloured colonies, allowing to him to example, in 1912, Ramsey demonstrated his newly discovered gases by ‘play’ with diﬀerent patterns that would emerge after incubation (such passing an electrical charge through them to show their vivid colours. It as a Union Jack, rock-gardens, a mother feeding a baby) (Box 427). was only Claude, seeing the same experiment as the 500 or so who also Nylon was discovered at Du Pont whilst attempting to develop artiﬁcial heard the lecture, who realised its commercial importance as the ﬁrst silk, but seemed initially to lack useful properties. Whilst playing neon light (Box 256: i1733). Similarly, many scientists had operated on around with the material however, speciﬁcally running down the hall the African frog whose skin contained the antimicrobial magainin, but whilst stretching it out, useful properties were found (Marvel, 1981). it was only Zasloﬀ who noticed it (Roberts, 1989, p. 169). Another When Langmuir discovered gas-ﬁlled lamps, it was by playing around example is the discovery of gut bacteria and peptic ulcers by Warren with bad vacuums rather than by diligently improving them, and in and Marshall, made despite the prevailing view of gastroenterologists using diﬀerent gases to see how bad they made the lamp, he discovered (Meyers, 2007, p. 105). better performing lamps (Box 256: i1732). The use of instruments by individuals unaware of prior theoretical Most science and technology studies scholars subscribe to the idea that observations predictions can be the basis for serendipity. Astronomers Baade and are never completely free from theoretical framings and are, to some extent, ‘theory- Zwicky predicted pulsars three decades before their discovery, and laden’ (see Hess, 1997). But, by expressing their claims in matters of degree, they also physicist Gamov predicted cosmic microwave background radiation leave open the possibility of observations that are weakly framed by theory. Specialists at the time thought that no bacteria existed in the guts after biopsies two decades before its discovery – both predictions needed to wait for failed to reveal any bacteria. Warren noticed large numbers of bacteria in biopsy samples of patients with gastritis, and that the stomach cells near the bacteria were damaged. Warren struggled to attract attention from gastroenterologists to his ﬁnding. Marshall, a resident doctor on gastro-rotation, initially noticed that bacteria were clinically relevant “Being thorough is essential… with cancer resections for example a speciﬁc format when he treated a gastritis patient successfully with antibiotic. So he tried to culture the is in place when reporting results to avoid missing important information.” (personal communication 2015, Mr Patel, vascular surgeon). bacteria for characterisation and testing. He thought the spiral bacteria were of the campylobacter genus, which grow in two days. On this basis, the lab discarded agar plates Hill noted that if he gathered the polymer with a glass stirring rod and drew it out of after 48 hours if no growth was visible. After months of failed attempts at culturing the the mass, it extended and became silky in appearance. Hill and his colleagues wanted to bacteria, Marshall left for the Easter weekend and the plates were inadvertently left in the see how far they could stretch one of these samples, and ran down the hall. In doing so, dark humid incubator for 5 days. Marshall returned to ﬁnd the culture growing (Meyers, they realised they were orienting the polymer molecules and increasing the strength of 2007, p. 105). the product into something more useful (Marvel, 1981). 173 O. Yaqub Research Policy 47 (2018) 169–179 observers equipped with suitably developed instrumentation for vali- within a collaborative network (Balconi et al., 2004; Rotolo and dation (Box 424). The observers’ lack of awareness of prior predictions Petruzzelli, 2013). The strength of weak ties may govern exposure to is what made their discoveries serendipitous. This contrasts with the novelty (Granovetter, 1973) and opportunities to broker information discovery of the Higgs-Boson particle, which also had a long interval and resources from certain points within a network may oﬀer a locus between theoretical prediction and empirical validation but was non- for serendipity to emerge (Burt, 2004). Scholars embedded in more serendipitous because the search eﬀort was dedicated to the theoretical diverse research networks may be more likely to recognise and pursue prediction. serendipitous discoveries simply because they have more information to hand, or more likely, know where to go in order to source the in- formation. 4.3. Serendipity and the tolerance of error In the case of the background radiation discovery, Penzias and Wilson could only make sense of their results after contacting physicists Inquiry can be loosely directed, allowing errors to seep in to ex- (Box 424). A more recent example is that of Agre, who was trying to perimental design whilst also hoping those very errors will be a source isolate and characterise the Rh blood group antigen when a second of serendipity (Box 428). The physicist Max Delbruck nonchalantly protein kept appearing in the tests (Dreifus, 2009). Initially, it was dubbed this the principle of ‘limited sloppiness’ (Salvador Luria simi- considered a contaminant or a breakdown by-product of Rh isolation, larly called it ‘controlled sloppiness’ and Root-Bernstein (1988; Box 13 but it showed up in all types of cells. Agre proved that this other protein 427:i4883) refers to the making of ‘intelligent mistakes’). For Luria, if was in fact a cell membrane channel protein after he visited his hae- a parameter is varied accidentally, one might be able to track down any matology professor, who suggested that as the explanation. unexpected results back to that variation. “It often pays to do somewhat In addition to information exchange, there is an also a teamwork untidy experiments, provided one is aware of the element of untidiness. role that networks play. In his 1933 essay on the craft of experimental In this way, unexpected results have a chance to come up. When they physics, Blackett suggests craft specialty may restrict the scope for do, I can trace their cause to the untidy, but known, features of the serendipity: experiment.” (Luria 1955, in Merton and Barber, 2004, p. 192) Mistakes play a prominent role in accounts of serendipity, where “The experimenter is always a specialist and does not often change seemingly critical substances have been dropped or spilled. See for in- his technique… Often he cannot usefully do so, for there are few stance Nobel on dynamite, Kolliker and Muller on electro-cardiac ac- experiments which do not need a considerable apprenticeship.” (Box tivity, Hyatt on celluloid, and Chardonnet on artiﬁcial silk (Box 256; 378: i1685). Roberts, 1989; Meyers, 2007). Substances have been inadvertently However, co-ordination might render it unnecessary for all re- heated or exploded in serendipitous episodes. For example, Goodyear searchers to have a disposition for serendipitous discovery. We have on vulcanisation, Stookey on ceramic glass, Davison and Germer on known since the 16th century that specialised investigators of a variety electron waves, and Elrich on bacterial staining (Halacy, 1967, p. 73; of skills and abilities could conceivably come together in a fruitful di- Box 256: i1727; Box 424:7). Serendipitous episodes have also emerged vision of labour. Mering and Minkowski may have demonstrated the after substances were forgotten about in pockets, or laid to rest over function of the pancreas in diabetes by creating experimental diabetes, vacations. For example, Spencer and the microwave oven, Becquerel but it was their technician who noticed the ﬂies loitering around the and radiation treatment for cancer, Fleming culturing penicillin, Pas- urine of pancreas-less animals (Box 378: i1666; Box 424). Similarly, it teur attenuating vaccination, Becquerel noticing radioactivity, and was Hunt who noticed the mouldy cantaloupe, before Florey, Chain, Marshall culturing gut bacteria (Box 378: i1650 and i1664; Box 427; Merck and Pﬁzer developed it into high yielding penicillin (Box 378: Halacy, 1967). Contamination, methodological blunder and equipment i1648). malfunction also feature frequently in accounts of serendipity, as well Fruitful collaborations can occur between individuals in quite dis- as assumed equipment failure. For example, Fleming’s lysozyme and parate parts of the network, across industrial sectors even. Discoveries penicillin, Warren’s gut bacteria, and Folkman’s angiostatin, Dotter’s of polythene and Teﬂon involved the telecommunications industry and angioplasty, Furchgott’s vasodilation, Vorhees’ vascular stents, Galvani the military as well as the chemical industry (Roberts, 1989). Strepto- and Volta’s battery, Nicholson and Carlisile on water structure, Swallow mycin and viral transmissibility of cancer were discovered after agri- and Perrin’s polythene, Fox’s polycarbonate, Bell and Watson’s tele- cultural poultry farmers contacted Waksman and Rous (Box 378:i1647; phone and Penzias and Wilson’s background radiation (Box 256; Box Meyers, 2007, p. 157). The systemic nature of some discoveries is no- 378; Box 424; Box 427; Box 429; Roberts, 1989; Meyers, 2007). ticeable in healthcare, where doctors, patients and researchers come together from multiple sectors in serendipitous discovery of drugs such 4.4. Serendipity and networks as abatecept, minoxidil, imipramine. Lastly, networks that are particularly homogeneous, cohesive and There are at least three ways in which networks are pertinent for insular may be inversely related to serendipity. Since social psycholo- serendipity. Firstly, networks play an informational role, bringing dis- gists have explored ‘groupthink’ or ‘echo-chamber’ eﬀects in various coveries to the attention of researchers who can exploit them. Secondly, contexts (Janis 1972, cited in Turner and Pratkanis, 1998; Esser, 1998; networks play a teamwork role, where exploitation of an observation Sunstein, 2001), it is plausible to think that such eﬀects can occur may require the skills and resources of multiple people. Thirdly, net- within research collaborations too. For example, large collaborations works could discourage serendipity via ‘groupthink’ or ‘echo-chamber’ may suﬀer from pressure to pursue a least-publishable-unit strategy eﬀects. where members want a large number of incremental papers or where There is a growing body of literature indicating that a researcher’s each wants a turn as ﬁrst- or corresponding-author. These are tricky output, both in terms of quantity and quality, is related to their position ideas to test (Katz and Martin, 1997), but amidst the rapidly burgeoning literature on research collaboration there are signs that not all “Many scientists had irradiated bacteria and phage with ultraviolet light and mea- sured survival rates. It turns out that if you measure survival in the presence of daylight, then you get entirely diﬀerent values than when you measure survival in the dark or in Francis Bacon’s dreamt up research organisation, the House of Solomon, included red light. The reason it hadn’t been discovered was because whoever had done the Merchants of Light, who keep up with the work of other organisations, Mystery-men who measurements had done them very carefully under controlled conditions, always the gather up earlier experiments into the state of the art, Pioneers who try new experiments, same light. Kelner and Dulbecco had done the experiments in a more sloppy way, Lamps who direct experiments, Inoculators who execute experiments with proﬁciency of sometimes putting the plates here, and sometimes there, sometimes having the water bath technicians, and Interpreters of Nature who raise former discoveries into greater axioms near the window and sometime not near the window” (Harding, 1978). and aphorisms. 174 O. Yaqub Research Policy 47 (2018) 169–179 connections would facilitate serendipity (see Bozeman et al., 2016 and (Walpolian, Mertonian, Bushian, Stephanian) together with four me- references therein). chanisms of serendipity (Theory-led, Observer-led, Error-borne, and Network-emergent). The types help us to appreciate that serendipity may exist across the research system in various forms. The mechanisms 4.5. Expansion and reduction to a typology of serendipity and its suggest that serendipity is not random; there may be important com- mechanisms binations of factors aﬀecting its occurrence and scope for altering its prevalence. The four serendipity mechanisms characterised above were mapped In this section I explore implications for policy and theory, and onto the typology to see if any preliminary patterns emerge. Cursory suggest that they are likely to vary for diﬀerent forms of serendipity. examination indicates that types and mechanisms are independent Measurement of these diﬀerent forms of serendipity may help underpin (Chisquared = 10.82, p = 0.28). However, such an analysis precludes policy with stronger rationales, but this would entail addressing some the possibility of diﬀerent combinations of mechanisms varying sys- diﬃcult conceptual challenges. tematically by serendipity type (moreover, as described in section 2, the examples were not subjected to proper empirical veriﬁcation). Developing a further typology oﬀers the beneﬁt of being able to 5.1. Serendipity: some implications of variation for theory and policy visualise diﬀerent combinations of mechanisms underlying the seren- dipity types, help interrogate the assumptions behind them, and explore The notion of serendipity has played an important role in debates interaction eﬀects, if any. By identifying four dimensions of research about the feasibility and desirability of targeting R & D investments, and underlying the serendipity types, we have already completed the ﬁrst in theories about the rate and direction of scientiﬁc and technical step of what Paul Lazarsﬁeld (1937, cited in Bailey, 1994) calls “sub- change (Sarewitz, 1996; Stirling, 2008; Mowery et al., 2010). Vannevar struction”. For the remainder of the process, we can extend the di- Bush invoked serendipity to argue against targeting research to speciﬁc mensions to a full typology, as in Fig. 2, and then engage in “functional goals in his blueprint for post-war science policy. Similarly, some reduction”, “pragmatic reduction” or “arbitrary reduction” (Lazarsﬁeld inﬂuential scientists and philosophers of science have argued that sci- 1937, cited in Bailey, 1994). ence cannot be planned and should be left to self-organise (Polanyi, In order to satisfy taxonomic requirements (that types need to be 1962; Ziman, 1994). Such views stand in contrast to others who argued exhaustive and mutually exclusive), we will have to assume that it will that research can and should be directed to social needs (Bernal, 1939; be possible to classify the mechanisms in a binary way. Each cell in Soddy 1935, cited in Guston, 2012; Sarewitz, 2016). In such debates, Fig. 2 is labelled in terms of presence (coded 1) or absence (coded 0). defences of basic science often deploy the notion of serendipity under Thus, the type in cell 1 possesses all four dimensions (1,1,1,1), and the assumptions that serendipity is prevalent and that serendipity might reasonably be called an ‘ideal’ type, while the type in cell 16 provides unequivocal support for basic science rationales. possesses none (0,0,0,0). The pair of cells 4 and 13 are also polar types, However, the existence of variety in serendipity, as shown in this but are not quite as extreme as cell pair 1 and 16. The interior cells paper, brings these assumptions into question. The policy implications (cells 6, 7, 10 and 11) might be described as least extreme, since they seem more variable than simply associating serendipity with less re- diﬀer from all other cells by no more than two dimensions, though search targeting. For example, the possibility of Mertonian serendipity, there is no reason to think this means they will be most prevalent where targeted search solves the problem-in-hand via an unexpected empirically. route and where unexpectedness lies in the approach and not the The 16 types of mechanisms for 4 types of serendipity (64 forms!) ﬁnding, suggests that serendipity and research-targeting are not ne- may be too unwieldy to be manageable, and could beneﬁt from some cessarily at odds with each other. reduction (Lazarsﬁeld 1937). Cell 16 can be dropped on “functional” So the distribution of serendipity across the diﬀerent types may turn grounds, since no cases of serendipity are likely to be found where none out to be more signiﬁcant than its overall prevalence. Previous sections of the underlying mechanisms are present. We might collapse the have shown that serendipity is not conﬁned to untargeted research (the middle two rows on “pragmatic” grounds, if I make the assumption that Bushian and Stephanian types). There are also Walpolian and theory and observation are two sides of the same coin, such that cells Mertonian types of serendipity, which can arise from applied research pairs 5 and 9, 6 and 10, 7 and 11, and 8 and 12 are merged. Or if, as I and technological development activities. If serendipity is just as pre- suggested earlier, we assume that none of the mechanisms are likely to valent in targeted research as it is in untargeted research, the rationale be suﬃcient on their own, we might then eliminate on “arbitrary nu- for basic science seems to be weakened. merical” grounds cells that do not have at least two mechanisms present The breadth of serendipity is at least as important as its prevalence, (cells 8, 12, 14, and 15). both in terms of sources and impacts. The implications of crossing over from microbiology to pathology are quite diﬀerent from crossing over 5. Serendipity: implications and (mis)measurement from physics to biology. Measures of epistemic distance (e.g. inter- disciplinarity, Rafols et al., 2012; Leahey et al., 2016) would seem to be The previous sections characterised four types of serendipity useful here, as well as an understanding of why the ﬂow of traﬃcisso heavy along some routes (e.g. physics instrumentation into medicine, lasers, x-rays, MRI scanners, see Rosenberg, 1992, 2009). Additionally, the impact of a few serendipitous discoveries may be more signiﬁcant and foundational in their nature for subsequent discoveries than a high number of other serendipitous discoveries. In short, magnitude of ser- endipity may be more deserving of attention than frequency. The tan- gled birth of textile, chemical and pharmaceutical industries is Bush (1945, p. 12–14) asserts “Scientiﬁc progress on a broad front results from the free play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dic- tated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown. Freedom of inquiry must be preserved under any plan for government support of science… Many of the most im- portant discoveries have come as a result of experiments undertaken with very diﬀerent Fig. 2. A sixteen cell typology formed by “substruction” from four dimensions of seren- purposes in mind… the results of any one particular investigation cannot be predicted dipity mechanisms. with accuracy.” 175 O. Yaqub Research Policy 47 (2018) 169–179 indicative of the possibility that the cumulative contribution of just a borne serendipity mechanism described in the previous section, and handful of serendipitous discoveries to socio-economic change could be driving out diversity in methodological approaches needed for very large. Evidence in support of either of these possibilities could Mertonian serendipity to come about. Emphases on eﬃciency, in strengthen the rationale for untargeted research. combination with a shift towards funding at the project-level, might The scale and scope of serendipity also aﬀects our economic ratio- also make it harder to recognise and appreciate that it is possible for nale for public funding of basic research. Early work focused on weak research to unexpectedly solve a later problem (the Stephanian type of incentives to invest in research due to its low appropriability (Nelson, serendipity), where research may initially appear to have little utility 1959; Arrow, 1962). The private actor may have undertaken research, and be deemed ineﬃcient. The bureaucratisation of research makes and then not been able to exclusively exploit the results without a rival the role of teams, networks and funding pertinent for questions about party (free-rider) beneﬁting. However, the assumption that private whether serendipity remains feasible or even desirable (Heinze et al., actors would not be able to appropriate all the beneﬁts arising from the 2009; Azoulay et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2015; Walsh and Lee, 2015). ﬁxed costs of their R & D investments was not only due to the risk of In short, diﬀerent forms of serendipity could have diﬀerent im- free-riders, but also because the research itself might not yield what was plications for policy and theory. Fig. 3 oﬀers a preliminary elaboration expected. The results could also be so unexpected that the private actor of this idea. Further study into serendipity should be guided by the could not make sense of them and exploit them, whilst the rival party possibility that considerable ﬁeld-speciﬁcdiﬀerences exist. Theory-led could. If the unexpected outcome took the form of results that could not and observer-led serendipity mechanisms suggest that the distribution be exploited by the private actor but could be serendipitously exploited of serendipity across ﬁelds of enquiry may be uneven. At the early by others, the disparity between private and social welfare is sub- stages of science, “the pickings may be easier” (Hollingsworth, 2008, p. stantially larger than is the case where only free-riders are concerned. 330) when theory may be ripe for serendipitous discovery, as Hooke, There is overlap here with the oft-discussed concept of R & D spillovers. Priestly, Mach, Planck and others have noted (Merton and Barber, Much of the literature has tended to refer to spillovers when research un- 2004, p. 160). It may be that serendipity is more prevalent in inter- dertaken by one organisation is used by another organisation. Especially disciplinary research and nascent ﬁelds of research (Merton and Barber, when theorganisationinquestion is a ﬁrm, the spillover concept has been 2004, p. 45; Yegros et al., 2015). Highly empirical research ﬁelds in the useful for economists of innovation concerned with competition, industry natural sciences (such as astronomy, organic chemistry, medicine, and structure, and rates of return to R & D (Jaﬀe, 1989; Cohen et al., 2002; Hall technology) may exhibit a prevalence of serendipitous episodes not et al., 2010). Especially when the organisation in question is a university, seen in the social sciences (after taking into account that discoveries of the spillover concept has been useful to geographers of innovation inter- any sort seem to feature less prominently in the social sciences). ested in spatial clustering, regional planning and diﬀerent forms of proxi- mity (Breschi and Lissoni 2001; Bresnahan et al., 2001; Boschma, 2005; 5.2. An amorphous unit of analysis: challenges to measuring serendipity Frenken et al., 2007). Whilst it is plausible that such knowledge ﬂows could also apply to serendipity, it seems worth noting that serendipity can occur I have explored some of the possible motivations for measuring not only between organisations but within them too (as exempliﬁed by serendipity. Here, I discuss some of the conceptual challenges likely to Viagra, whose re-directed development occurred largely within the be encountered in measuring serendipity. They relate to timing and boundaries of a single ﬁrm). As such, serendipity may be pertinent for sources of exaggeration and suppression of serendipity. management and organisation theory: for example, “solutions looking for a Serendipity may depend on the window of analysis. For example, if I question” in the garbage can model (Cohen et al., 1972, p. 3); en- were to take only the moment that Goodyear accidentally dropped trepreneurship as little more than a random walk (Coad et al., 2015; Lui and sulphur and rubber into a hot stove, I might be tempted to be classify Rond, 2016); and infrastructures for the emergence of complex products his discovery as untargeted research that unexpectedly solves an im- like drugs (Dougherty, 2016, p. 8; Gittelman, 2016, p. 1573-4). mediate problem (the Bushian type). But putting the episode into The possibility of serendipity occurring through a variety of me- context would reveal it to be of another type of serendipity, because for chanisms should raise concerns among those seeking greater eﬃciency ten long years he had ceaselessly worked on the problem of vulcani- in research, and those framing innovation solely in terms of reducing sation (Box 378: i1667; Halacy, 1967). By changing our timeframes, I uncertainty. The pursuit of eﬃciency could be supressing the error- ﬁnd Goodyear was searching with a deﬁned problem in mind and the route to the solution was merely incidental (Mertonian serendipity). The long-term impacts of serendipitous discoveries also make ana- There could be eight counts of serendipity here, perhaps more depending on how lysis and classiﬁcation diﬃcult. For example, in the discovery of Teﬂon, one is to count serendipity, as explored in 5.2: Local custom had it that a man could Plunkett was searching for a non-toxic refrigerant, when he discovered recover from fever after drinking from a pool which had extracts from a neighbouring quina tree [#1]. Soaring demand for the bark of this Peruvian tree led to the isolation of a polymer without use (because it was too expensive); this would be its antimalarial active ingredient, quinine, in 1820. By the 1850s, Perkin was one of many Stephanian serendipity. It then solved a diﬀerent problem, for devel- fervently searching for a synthetic version of quinine, when he stumbled upon coal tar dye opers of the atomic bomb (who needed gaskets that would resist the [#2]. In the 1890s, when Elrich discovered that dyes could attach to bacteria and se- corrosive gas used to produce U235); this would be Walpolian seren- lectively stain them, he was prompted to consider the possibility of using chemicals to selectively kill pathogens [#3]. (This idea, chemotherapy, was vital for motivating the dipity. It took decades before better known impacts emerged (cooking search for antibiotics and their development.) In the 1920s, Domagk and others were utensils, transplants, pacemakers, spacesuits and so on), and if I were to hired to test a range of synthetic dyes for their eﬀectiveness against disease. They found include these solutions, I am still led to classify the serendipity as dyes that were indeed bactericidal, but it was the sulfonamide group in them that was Walpolian, despite the fact that these solutions are completely diﬀerent essential [#4]. (The dye was merely incidental, and indeed the red tinge that some to the original instance of Walpolian serendipity. children had acquired was in retrospect needless.) By then, Koch had developed selective bacterial culturing techniques, after noticing a slice of old potato with diﬀerent coloured spots [#5] (previously, bacteria were cultured in ﬂasks of nutrient broth). In the 1920s, these were the techniques that Fleming found himself playing around with, when a drop Some impacts emerge mostly over the long term. This implies the need for a trained from his runny nose fell on a petri dish and lysed some colonies of bacteria [#6]. His workforce to maintain the knowledge base within which indirect serendipitous links can discovery of lysozyme put him on alert for noticing the ‘contaminant’ that later turned out eventually be forged. “Scientiﬁc knowledge is indeed durable, but only at the price of the to be penicillin [#7]. In the 1940s, Florey and Chain, with the help of Merck and Pﬁzer, heavy investments needed to maintain it. In order to make the law f= m a available in helped to realise its commercial potential as a powerful antibiotic that could be mass- Singapore in 1993, a large number of textbooks had to be published and sold, teachers produced. They were able to do so only after Mary Hunt, a laboratory aide, brought in had to drum the message into stubborn heads, research institutions and enterprises had to yellow mould she happened to notice growing on a rotten cantaloupe in a fruit market, develop, researchers had to be trained and paid. Compared to the cost of maintaining a which turned out to be 3000 times more potent than Fleming’s original strain [#8]. (Box so-called universal law, the cost of maintaining the American army in Kuwait pales into 256; Box 378; Box 424; Box 427; Meyers, 2007; Greenwood, 1992). insigniﬁcance.” Callon (1994, p. 406). 176 O. Yaqub Research Policy 47 (2018) 169–179 Fig. 3. Serendipity types and mechanisms: some implications for theory and policy (Bijker et al., 1987; David et al., 1999; Gibbons, 1994; Merton, 1973; Pavitt, 1999). Similarly, to describe the Friedel-Crafts procedure as a discovery over-stated. Firstly, scientiﬁc publication may omit all the messy dead- where the search for a solution to one problem led to the solution of ends in research or work them into tidy narratives. Peter Medawar another (Walpolian serendipity), would be to severely understate the took ‘retrospective falsiﬁcation’, as termed by Barber and Fox, so far as vast array of ‘other’ solutions emerging in the years that followed (still to ask, somewhat sensationally, “Is the scientiﬁc paper a fraud?”. Ri- Walpolian serendipity, but more so). If one broadens the timeframe for chard Feynman used his Nobel lecture, as several others have done, to analysis, perhaps no other organic reaction has been of more practical describe the sequence of events and ideas in a way that he claimed he value (gasoline, artiﬁcial rubber, artiﬁcial detergents, etc). In another “cannot do elsewhere …in regular journals”. Medawar and Feynman example, the discovery of polythene was developed for insulating radar highlight how the standard format of an orthodox paper plays a role in cables but was then developed into an array of other products ranging suppressing much that is interesting in the scientiﬁc process for the from cars to carpets. serendipity researcher. The diﬃculty of deﬁning markers for the start- and end-points of a Secondly, observers of serendipity may be concerned with how serendipitous episode is exacerbated if we take seriously the notion that meritorious their eﬀorts will seem. The investigator may worry that if researchers may have latent interests as well as active ones. The way we they acknowledge the role of serendipity, their accomplishments might treat latent questions as either having had ‘adeﬁned problem in mind’ be seen as mere accidents, with implications for their professional or ‘searching with no particular problem in mind’, depends on the in- competence (or lack thereof). The dispute between Waksman and his vestigator’s work on antecedent problems. The type of serendipity be- student over the discovery of streptomycin suggests that both felt en- comes contingent on our recognition of whether the issue was at the titled to claim credit but only the senior of the two disclosed serendi- forefront of the investigator’s concerns. pitous inﬂuences (Box 378:i1647; Meyers, 2007, p. 157). Journal edi- The notion of a hunch allows investigators to post-hoc claim they tors and referees might think descriptions of serendipity as mere had some sort of intuition, preceding a serendipitous episode. For ex- digressions to be deleted. ample, Kerkule reported that his two most important discoveries, the Thirdly, a serendipitous discovery might have been noticed but not idea that atoms combine relative to their valence and the structure of benzene, came to him in dreams (Roberts, 1989, p. 75). Another ex- Merton notes that “the elegance and parsimony prescribed for the presentation of ample is Senefelder, who on a hunch treated his limestone slab with the results of scientiﬁc work tend to falsify retrospectively the actual process by which the acid to discover lithography (Halacy, 1967, p. 99). Such notions are results were obtained” and “the etiquette governing the writing of scientiﬁc (or scholarly) impossible to verify, akin to the lottery winner who claims that she papers requires them to be works of vast expurgation, stripping the complex events that ‘knew all along’ that she was going to win. culminated in the published reports of everything except their delimited cognitive sub- stance. In short the audience demands a well-formulated argument that retrospectively The hunch as I see it, suggests that serendipitous episodes are more imposes a logical form on the romance of investigation” (Merton and Barber, 2004, p. 159 drawn out than a mere moment or ﬂash of inspiration that Canon and 272). (1945) and others describe. The timing problem suggests serendipity is A serendipitous discovery may be seen as less worthy than one made without ser- more procedural than an event; one might instead refer to a serendi- endipity. As one Nobel laureate declared, “I think the Nobel Prize brought undue rewards. pitous phase, interlude or episode (Box 426:i1569). I got it for a purely accidental discovery. Anybody could have done that. This is often true in experimental physics. I think you can happen to be in a position where an important Let us consider four situations where serendipity may be under- or discovery is right there” (Merton and Barber, 2004, p. 296). 177 O. Yaqub Research Policy 47 (2018) 169–179 exploited because the observer was unable to convince others that the distinguished by ﬁrstly, whether there was a targeted line of enquiry when discovery was worth pursuing. Or perhaps the investigator is so com- the discovery emerged, and secondly, what type of problem the discovery mitted to their search target by their patrons or future evaluators (e.g. solved (see Fig. 1). Journal editors, referees, grant reviewers, technical directors), that they Four mechanisms of serendipity were explored. Serendipity may refuse to be distracted by new research goals. If we relax the assump- depend on the attributes of the observer and her situation (such as her tion that the discovery is “happy” for everyone, and consider that the perceptiveness, instruments and observation systems), or it may depend discovery might be “strategic” only for some, we might start asking for on the characteristics of the ﬁeld of inquiry itself (such as when the whom was the episode serendipitous. Consider for example an alcoholic growth of theory becomes conspicuous for discovery). I noted that er- who discovers his raﬄe ticket has won him a bottle of whiskey. rors took a prominent position in many accounts of serendipity, where There are several examples of serendipitous observations not being seemingly critical substances have been dropped, spilled, inadvertently recognised by others. In his masters dissertation, Scott reported his heated or exploded, forgotten about in pockets or drawers or laid to rest observation that an internal secretion from the pancreas controlled over holidays, contaminated, or subjected to methodological blunder sugar metabolism. His supervisor dismissed the observation and edited and/or equipment malfunction. Serendipity may depend on such the article before publication. Years later, the supervisor wrote to Scott, ‘controlled sloppiness’, where experimental design is loosely directed “I feel I personally have to shoulder a great deal of blame for dis- enough to allow discoveries to emerge, but not so uncontrolled that couraging you from going ahead with that work” (Sawyer, 1966, p. variations cannot be traced back to a source. Lastly, I suggested that 617). In another example, Marshall so struggled to convince gastro- networks play dual, informational and teamwork, roles in serendipity, enterologists of his observation that bacteria could cause stomach ul- or conversely might discourage serendipity through groupthink eﬀects. cers that, in desperation, he resorted to self-experimentation (Meyers, The types help us to recognise some of the variety of serendipity 2007, p. 105). that is possible, and allows us to appreciate that serendipity may exist Fourthly, the unexpectedness of the discovery may not necessarily in basic science, applied research and technological development ac- be the same as far as the researcher and the funder are concerned. tivities. The mechanisms suggest that serendipity is not random, there Funders may have intended for there to be cross-over from their de- may be important factors aﬀecting its occurrence, and there may even signated target, or investigators may have been well aware of multiple be scope for altering its prevalence. Moreover, policy and theory im- avenues that were potentially fruitful but disclosed only some of them. plications may vary by type and mechanism of serendipity (see Fig. 3). Such possibilities are diﬃcult to discern beyond what is stated in pro- Serendipity does not necessarily strengthen rationales for un- posals or funders’ mission statements, but it is worth noting that pro- targeted research, and conversely do not necessarily weaken rationales posals might be misleading for the purposes of tracing serendipity for targeted research. The desirability of altering the prevalence of (because they reﬂect what the investigator thought would secure the certain types of serendipity may depend on whether certain mechan- funding, not what the investigator actually expected or planned to do) isms of serendipity are believed to be associated with better research and mission statements can often be reduced to meaningless levels of performance, or believed to be a hindrance to achieving targeted social generality. This may lead to over-estimates of serendipity. goals. These situations, where serendipity might be over- and under- The possibility of serendipity occurring through a variety of me- stated, seem relevant to what Leahey calls “data editing”. She shows chanisms should raise concerns among those seeking greater eﬃciency large variation in how researchers deal with data, in how they clean in research, and those framing innovation solely in terms of reducing datasets of apparently illogical, seemingly incorrect, or supposedly in- uncertainty. The pursuit of eﬃciency could be supressing the error- accurate data, and in researcher-opinions about ‘proper’ use of data. borne serendipity mechanism, and driving out diversity in methodolo- She ﬁnds that some of that variation depends on discipline, data col- gical approaches needed for Mertonian serendipity to come about. lection method, characteristics of the data-editing situation like whe- Greater pressure for eﬃciency might also make it harder to recognise ther the problem is with an independent or dependent variable, and and appreciate that it is possible for research to unexpectedly solve a status and seniority (Leahey et al., 2003; Leahey, 2004). It seems rea- later problem, where research may initially appear to have little utility sonable to think that research governance structures might broadly and and be deemed ineﬃcient. systematically aﬀect ‘what’s in and what’s omitted’, and have important For those wishing to measure serendipity, I discussed some con- implications for serendipity measurement (Owen-Smith, 2001; Leahey, ceptual diﬃculties relating to the unit of analysis, and potential sources 2008). of over- and under-estimation of serendipity. There is clearly much about serendipity that currently deﬁes large-sample quantitative ana- lysis and will require qualitative eﬀorts to go hand-in-hand for the time 6. Conclusions being. Even while emphasising some of the measurement diﬃculties, I The main contribution of this paper has been to develop a typology believe it is important to know more about the frequency, magnitude of serendipity in research and to identify the main mechanisms through and qualitative nature of serendipity. Developing the implications of which it occurs. I drew on the Merton archives to help collect hundreds serendipity for policy and theory is not clear-cut, and will require a of examples of serendipity. Rather than explore their histories in pursuit better sense of how serendipity is distributed across the research of a research program in sociological semantics as Merton did, I ana- system. I hope that the typology of serendipity and discussion of its lysed these examples for similarities and diﬀerences with respect to mechanisms developed here facilitate research along these lines. types and mechanisms of serendipity in order to clarify new empirical research questions in the ﬁeld of research policy and explore their Acknowledgements possible policy implications. The typology took the notion of serendipity, widely but vaguely inter- I’m indebted to Bhaven Sampat, who was the brains behind all this preted as simple happy accidents, and developed it into four, more speciﬁc, and whose suggestion it was to mine the Merton archives, and to Ben interpretations: Walpolian, Mertonian, Bushian and Stephanian. They are Martin, who oﬀered guidance and encouragement. Bhaven and Ben provided multiple rounds of comments, even as they were being sub- jected to very early drafts without mercy. I’m grateful for Dick Nelson’s Fleming’s discovery of lysozyme might have been received with more commotion comments on the manuscript, to put it mildly. I thank Jonathan had he not been such a monotonous and mumbling speaker (Meyers, 2007, p. 63). In Cole, my Columbia oﬃce-mates, and four anonymous reviewers. All another example, the observer of viral transmission of cancer was derided, “Rous either has a hole in his ﬁlter or a hole in his head” (Kohn, 1989, p. 6). 178 O. Yaqub Research Policy 47 (2018) 169–179 Jaﬀe, A., 1989. Characterizing the technological position of ﬁrms, with application to shortcomings belong to me. I acknowledge ESRC grant ES/L011409/1 quantifying technological opportunity and research spillovers. Res. Policy 18 (2), and European Research Council grant 759897. 87–97. Joerges, B., Shinn, T., et al., 2001. In: Joerges (Ed.), Instrumentation: Between Science, State, and Industry (p175-193). Kluwer Dordrecht, Netherlands. References Katz, Martin, 1997. What is research collaboration? Research Policy 26 (1), 1–18. Keynes, J., 1921. A Treatise on Probability. Macmillan, London. Andel, P., 1994. Anatomy of the unsought ﬁnding. Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 45, 631–648. Kohler, R., 1971. Buchner's discovery of cell-free fermentation. J. Hist. Biol. 4 (1), 35–61. Arrow, K., 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources. In: Nelson, R. (Ed.), Kohn, A., 1989. Fortune or Failure. Blackwell Oxford, UK. ‘The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity’. PUPPrinceton. Kuhn, T., 1962. The Structure of Scientiﬁc Revolutions. Chicago University Press, Azoulay, P., et al., 2011. Incentives and creativity. RAND J. Econ. 42 (3), 527–554. Chicago, IL. Bailey, K., 1994. Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classiﬁcation Leahey, E., et al., 2003. Diversity in everyday research practice: the case of data editing. Techniques. Sage Thousand Oaks, CA. Sociol. Methods Res. 32 (1), 64–89. Balconi, M., et al., 2004. Networks of inventors and the role of academia. Res. Policy 33 Leahey, E., et al., 2016. Prominent but less productive: the impact of interdisciplinarity on (1), 127–145. scientists’ research. Adm. Sci. Q. 62 (1), 105–139. Balconi, M., et al., 2010. In defence of the linear model. Res. Policy 39 (1), 1–13. Leahey, E., 2004. The role of status in evaluating research: the case of data editing. Soc. Bernal, J., 1939. The Social Function of Science. Routledge, London. Sci. Res. 33 (3), 521–537. Root-Bernstein, R., 1988. Setting the stage for discovery. Sciences 28 (3), 26–34. Leahey, E., 2008. Overseeing research practice: the case of data editing. Sci. Technol. Bijker, W., et al., 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems. MIT Press Hum. Values 33 (5), 605–630. Cambridge, MA. Lee, Y., et al., 2015. Creativity in scientiﬁc teams. Res. Policy 44, 684–697. Boschma, R., 2005. Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg. Stud. 39 (1), Lui, C., Rond, M., 2016. Perspectives on luck in management scholarship. Acad. Manage. 61–74. Ann. 10 (1), 409–451. Bozeman, B., et al., 2016. Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: dispatches Marvel, C., 1981. Development of polymer chemistry in America. J. Chem. Educ. 58, 535. from the front lines. Sci. Public Policy 43 (2), 226–244. McKinney, J., 1966. Constructive Typology and Social Theory. Meredith, NY. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., 2001. Industrial and Corporate Change 10 (4), 975–1005. Merton, R., Barber, E., 2004. The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity. PUPPrinceton. Bresnahan, T., et al., 2001. Indus. Corp. Change 10 (4), 835–860. Merton, R., 1948. The bearing of empirical research upon the development of social Burt, R., 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. Am. J. Soc. 110 (2), 349–399. theory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 13 (5), 505–515. Bush, V., 1945. Science: The Endless Frontier. US GPO, Washington DC. Merton, R., 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Calhoun, C., 2010. In: Merton, Robert K. (Ed.), Sociology of Science and Sociology as Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL. Science. CUP NYC. Meyers, M., 2007. Happy Accidents. Arcade, NY. Callon, M., 1994. Is science a public good? Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 19 (4), 395–424. Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Martin, B., 2010. Technology policy and global warming. Res. Calvert, J., 2004. The idea of basic research in language and practice. Minerva 42, Policy 39 (8), 1011–1023. 251–268. Murayama, K., et al., 2015. Management of science, serendipity, and research perfor- Canon, W., 1945. Way of an Investigator. Norton NY. mance. Res. Policy 44 (4), 862–873. Coad, A., et al., 2015. Are ﬁrm growth paths random? J. Bus. Vent. Insights 3, 5–8. Nelson, R., 1959. Simple economics of basic scientiﬁc research. J. Polit. Econ. 67 (3), Cohen, M., et al., 1972. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Adm. Sci. Q. 17 297–306. (1), 1–25. Nightingale, P., Scott, A., 2007. Peer review and the relevance gap. Sci. Public Policy 34 Cohen, W., et al., 2002. R & D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan (8), 543–553. and the United States. Res. Policy 31 (8/9), 1349–1367. Nightingale, P., 2014. What Is Technology? SWPS, pp. 2014–2019. Cozzens, S., 1989. Social Control and Multiple Discovery in Science. SUNY Press Owen-Smith, 2001. Managing laboratory work through skepticism: processes of evalua- Albany, NY. tion and control. Am. Sociol. Rev. 66, 427–452. Cunha, M., et al., 2010. On serendipity and organizing. Eur. Manage. J. 28 (5), 319–330. Pavitt, K., 1999. Technology, Management and Systems of Innovation. Edward Elgar, David, P., et al., 1999. The research network and the new economics of science: from Cheltenham. metaphors to organizational behaviors. In: Gambardella, A., Malerba, F. (Eds.), The Petroski, H., 2006. Success Through Failure. PUP Princeton, NJ. Organization of Economic Innovation in Europe. CUP Cambridge, UK. Polanyi, M., 1962. The republic of science. Minerva 1, 54–73. Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Res. Policy 11 Price, D., 1984. The science/technology relationship. Res. Policy 13 (1), 3–20. (3), 147–162. Rafols, I., et al., 2012. How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research. Res. Doty, D., Glick, W., 1994. Typologies as a unique form of theory building. Acad. Manage. Policy 41, 1262–1282. Rev. 19, 230–251. Rheinberger, H.-J., 1997. Toward a History of Epistemic Things. SUP Stanford, CA. Dougherty, D., 2016. Taking Advantage of Emergence. OUP Oxford, UK. Roberts, R., 1989. Serendipity. John Wiley, NY. Dreifus, C., 2009. Peter Agre Interview. New York Times, NY. Rosenberg, N., 1992. Scientiﬁc instrumentation and university research. Res. Policy 21, Edgerton, D., 2007. The Shock of the Old. OUP Oxford. 381–390. Esser, J., 1998. Alive and well after 25 years: a review of groupthink research. Organ. Rosenberg, N., 1994. Exploring the Black Box. CUP Cambridge, UK. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 73 (2/3), 116–141. Rosenberg, N., 2009. Some critical episodes in medical innovation. Res. Policy 38, Freeman, C., 1982. The Economics of Industrial Innovation, Penguin. 234–242. Frenken, K., et al., 2007. Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic Rothwell, R., et al., 1974. Project SAPPHO phase II. Res. Policy 3 (3), 258–291. growth. Reg. Stud. 41 (5), 685–697. Rotolo, D., Petruzzelli, A., 2013. When does centrality matter? J. Organ. Behav. 34 (5), Gibbons, M., et al., 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. Sage London, UK. 648–670. Gittelman, M., 2016. The revolution re-visited: clinical and genetics research paradigms Sampat, B., 2014. Serendipity. http://ssrn. com/abstract 2545515. and the productivity paradox in drug discovery. Res. Policy 45 (8), 1570–1585. Sarewitz, D., 1996. Frontiers of Illusion. TUPPhiladelphia. Granovetter, M., 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78 (6), 1360–1380. Sarewitz, D., 2016. Saving science. The New Atlantis 49, 4–40. Greenwood, D., 1992. The quinine connection. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 30, 417–427. Sawyer, 1966. Banting’s misinterpretation of the work of Scott. Perspect. Biol. Med. 29, Guston, D., 2012. The Pumpkin or the Tiger? Michael Polanyi, Frederick Soddy, and Anticipating Emerging Technologies. Minerva 50 (3), 363–379. Senker, J., 1991. Evaluating the funding of strategic science. Res. Policy 20 (1), 29–44. Hacking, 1983. Representing and Intervening. CUP, Cambridge, UK. Shapiro, G., 1986. Serendipity in Science. Harper NYC. Halacy, D., 1967. Science and Serendipity. Macrae, Philadelphia. Stirling, A., 2008. Opening up and closing down? Sci. Technol. Hum.Values 33 (2), Hall, B., et al., 2010. In: Hall, Rosenberg (Eds.), Measuring the Returns to R & D (p1034- 262–294. 1082). Elsevier Amsterdam, Netherlands. Stokes, D., 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant. Brookings, Washington, DC. Harding, C., 1978. Max Delbruck Interview. Caltech Archives, CA. Sunstein, C., 2001. Echo Chambers. PUP Princeton, NJ. Heinze, T., et al., 2009. Organizational and institutional inﬂuences on creativity in sci- Turner, M., Pratkanis, A., 1998. Twenty-Five years of groupthink theory and research. entiﬁc research. Res. Policy 38, 610–623. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 73 (2/3), 105–115. Heinze, T., et al., 2013. New patterns of scientiﬁc growth: how research expanded after Vincenti, W., 1990. What Engineers Know and How They Know It. Johns Hopkins the invention of scanning tunnelling microscopy and the discovery of buckmin- University Press, Baltimore. sterfullerenes. JASIST 64 (4), 829–843. Walsh, J., Lee, Y., 2015. The bureaucratization of science. Res. Policy 44 (8), 1584–1600. Hess, D., 1997. Science Studies. NYU Press, NY. Yegros, A., et al., 2015. Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? Hollingsworth, R., 2008. Scientiﬁc discoveries: an institutionalist and path-dependent PLoS One 10 (8), e0135095. perspective (p317-353). In: Hannaway, C. (Ed.), National Institutes of Health. Ziman, J., 1994. Prometheus Bound. CUP Cambridge, UK. Bethesda, MD.

http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

SSRN Electronic Journal Unpaywall

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/unpaywall/serendipity-towards-a-taxonomy-and-a-theory-6kKC0K3Ipy

Loading next page...

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher: Unpaywall
ISSN: 1556-5068
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2841236
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Journal

SSRN Electronic Journal – Unpaywall

Published: Jan 1, 2016

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Serendipity: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory

Serendipity: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Serendipity: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory

Serendipity: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory

References

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies