This open access book examines how the social sciences can be integrated into the praxis of engineering and science, presenting unique perspectives on the interplay between engineering and social science.

Applying science to the current art of producing engineering and research knowledge has proven difficult, in large part because of its seeming complexity. The authors posit that the microscopic processes underlying research are not so complex, but instead are iterative and interacting cycles of divergent (generation of ideas) and convergent (testing and selecting of ideas) thinking processes.

Cycles of Invention and Discovery offers an in-depth look at the real-world practice of science and engineering. It shows how the standard categories of "basic" and "applied" have become a hindrance to the organization of the U.S. science and technology enterprise. Tracing the history of these problematic categories, the authors document how historical views of policy makers and scientists have led to the construction of science as a pure ideal on the one hand and of engineering as a practical (and inherently less prestigious) activity on the other. Even today, this erroneous but still widespread distinction forces these two endeavors into separate silos, misdirects billions of dollars, and thwarts progress in science and engineering research.

"...[M]any of our most pressing planetary-scale problems are physical-science based. Moreover, if the physical sciences can integrate the new social sciences knowledge, tools, and insight in frequent cycles of selfexamination, then the interaction will not be so much a study by an outsider but rather a process of self-reflection and improvement based on sound science. Many current standard metrics of research effectiveness—for example, the h-index—suffer from well documented shortcomings. That alone should provide ample reason to try something new and to engage with our social sciences colleagues to improve our research practice."

Some of America's most distinguished leaders in academia, science, and technology gathered at Harvard on September 19 and 20, 2014, to celebrate the 75th birthday of renowned Harvard scientist Venkatesh "Venky" Narayanamurti — and to discuss the future of innovation in America.

The purpose of this Forum and Roundtable was to initiate a dialog between the two communities: distinguished practitioners of the art of research and experts in the emerging science of research.

In this paper we hope to provide an alternative point of view. By examining both the evolution of the famous "linear model of innovation" — which holds that scientific research precedes technological innovation — and the problematic description of engineering being "applied science" we seek to challenge the existing dichotomies between basic / applied research, science and engineering, tracing how knowledge travels between different knowledge domains through a case study of a selected group of Nobel Prizes in physics.

  A few months ago, I discovered that my excessive fatigue and uneasy sleep were caused by an underlying condition of severe sleep apnea. This malady causes one to stop breathing while sleeping. Humans of course, need to breathe, so the end result is that sufferers keep waking up every 5 minutes or so to restart the breathing process, all the while remaining blissfully unaware of multiple interruptions to their sleep. That is, until the fatigue begins upon waking. In my case, the recommended treatment was a CPAP (Continuous Positive Airways Pressure) machine.

"This mini-history reveals how knowledge grows through a richly interwoven system of scientific and technological research in which there is no clear hierarchy of importance and no straightforward linear trajectory. Accepting this reality has profound implications for the design of research institutions, the allocation of resources, and the national policies that guide research. This in turn can open the door to game-changing discoveries and inventions and put the nation on the path to a more sustainable science and technology ecosystem."

"...[T]his kind of surveillance was seen as unproblematic even in a field as sensitive to informed consent as medicine, is cause for reflection. As the patient, who had to take this device into my home, I was never asked for my consent, neither was I informed of the data recording capabilities of the CPAP machine."