research
framework

The mission of Digitalis Research is to build new ideas at the intersection of critical emerging technologies and health. In pursuing this mission, Digitalis Research integrates STEM literacy with perspectives related to key societal themes involving health including technological change, rules & policy, finance, and equity. This document sets forth our research framework.

Quest for Fundamental Understanding?

LOW

Niels Bohr

Pure Basic Research

Niels Bohr

Albert Einstein

Theory / Prediction

Albert Einstein

HIGH

Louis Pasteur

Use-Inspired Research

Louis Pasteur

Thomas Edison

Pure-Applied Research

Thomas Edison

HIGH

LOW

Consideration of Use?

Research Models

PASTEUR’S QUADRANT

A number of models have been proposed to describe how new knowledge is created.

In the traditional academic model of knowledge production (sometimes referred to as Mode 1), problems of knowledge are set and solved in a context governed by the academic interests of a particular community without regard to the applicability of any finding. Mode 1 is thus characterized by a disciplinary focus, with a homogeneity of skills of researchers in the domain, governed by a hierarchical organization both within the discipline and within the local environment, where quality is largely determined through peer review, and accountability to society is not a primary concern. 1

1

Tjellvold, The Service University, Managing Global Transitions 8 (4): 423–447), December 2010

In 1994, Gibbons et al developed a new knowledge production model they called Mode 2 in juxtaposition to Mode 1. Mode 2 involved knowledge being produced and carried out in the context of a particular application. In Mode 2, knowledge production is started from practical problems, not from theoretical or discipline-based problems, with the production often taking place in a cross-disciplinary context involving alliances and connections which have in principle no limits (particularly given modern IT/communications technologies), and are socially accountable. 2

2

Gibbons et al, The new production of knowledge : the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, SAGE Publications, London, 1994

The distinctions between Mode 1 and Mode 2 were memorably extended by Donald Stokes in his 1997 book, "Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation.” 3 Stokes visualized a model of scientific research in the form of a 2x2 matrix with two axes:

3

Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Brookings Institution Press, 1997

1. The pursuit of fundamental understanding; and
2. Considerations of practical use.

This matrix creates four quadrants:

Unnamed Quadrant

  • Low quest for fundamental understanding
  • Low considerations of use
  • Often represents research driven solely by curiosity without clear application

Bohr's Quadrant (pure basic research)

  • High quest for fundamental understanding
  • Low considerations of use
  • Named after Niels Bohr, known for his work on atomic structure
  • Example: Theoretical physics

Edison's Quadrant (pure applied research)

  • Low quest for fundamental understanding
  • High considerations of use
  • Named after Thomas Edison, known for his practical inventions
  • Example: Industrial R&D focused on immediate product development

Pasteur's Quadrant (use-inspired basic research)

  • High quest for fundamental understanding
  • High considerations of use
  • Named after Louis Pasteur, who combined basic research with practical applications
  • Example: Research on disease mechanisms to develop treatments


Pasteur's Quadrant challenges the traditional dichotomy between basic and applied research, suggesting that some of the most impactful research occurs at their intersection. The key insight of Stoke’s model is that research can simultaneously advance fundamental understanding and have practical applications.

Digitalis Research modifies Stokes’ matrix by adding the idea of Theory as the focus of the lower left quadrant. This is the domain of imagination that is then brought to fruition in the other quadrants. Digitalis Research seeks to be inspired by the Theory quadrant, but also seeks to pursue its work firmly in Pasteur’s Quadrant.

1

Tjellvold, The Service University, Managing Global Transitions 8 (4): 423–447), December 2010

2

Gibbons et al, The new production of knowledge : the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, SAGE Publications, London, 1994

3

Stokes, Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, Brookings Institution Press, 1997

QUADRUPLE HELIX

quadruple helix

A more complex/dynamic model for research known as the Quadruple Helix Model was introduced by Carayannis and Campbell in 2009. 4 This model considers the interactions among four pillars:

4

Carayannis, Elias G.; Campbell, David F.J. (2009). "'Mode 3' and 'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem". International Journal of Technology Management. 46 (3/4): 201. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374. ISSN 0267-5730. S2CID 1444029.

Academia (universities and research institutions)

  • Produces and disseminates knowledge
  • Provides human capital through education and training
  • Conducts basic and applied research

Industry (businesses and corporations)

  • Commercializes innovations
  • Provides market knowledge and entrepreneurial skills
  • Invests in R&D and new technologies

Government (policymakers and public institutions)

  • Sets policies and regulations
  • Provides research funding and infrastructure
  • Creates incentives for innovation

Civil Society (citizens, users, media, and culture-based public)

  • Provides user feedback and insights
  • Represents societal needs and values
  • Participates in co-creation and citizen science initiatives


This four-part model provides a more comprehensive view of the knowledge creation ecosystem and emphasizes the importance of public engagement in the process.

Key principles of the Quadruple Helix Model include:

  1. Collaborative innovation: innovation emerges from the interactions and collaborations between all four helices.
  2. User-centered innovation: emphasizes the role of users and the public in driving innovation.
  3. Open innovation: encourages the flow of ideas and knowledge across institutional boundaries.
  4. Democratization of innovation: involves the public in the innovation process, making it more inclusive and responsive to societal needs.


Digitalis Research believes that the shift toward a more inclusive and socially responsible research process captured by the Quadruple Helix Model is necessary; and that, in today’s complex world, the active involvement of all societal stakeholders in the knowledge creation process is a baseline requirement.

4

Carayannis, Elias G.; Campbell, David F.J. (2009). "'Mode 3' and 'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem". International Journal of Technology Management. 46 (3/4): 201. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374. ISSN 0267-5730. S2CID 1444029.

Research Focus

Building off the research models provided by Pasteur’s Quadrant and the Quadruple Helix, the focus of Digitalis Research involves understanding the intersection of critical emerging technologies and health particularly as influenced by four societal themes: technological change, rules & policy, finance, and equity.

research focus

CRITICAL EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES + HEALTH

How would you define technology? A common definition is something like, “the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.” 5 A more expansive definition, and one that fits the focus of Digitalis Research better, comes from Clay Christensen’s book The Innovator’s Dilemma:

5

New Oxford American Dictionary.

The process by which an organization transforms labor, capital, materials, or information into products and services of greater value. 6

6

Christensen, Clayton M. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press. 1997.

Critical emerging technologies are the subset of technologies that are in early stages of development but show the ability to significantly enhance or harm our health, security, economic, and societal well-being. Key examples include quantum technologies, synthetic biology, and artificial intelligence.

Health can be thought of as a state of optimal functioning and balance in biological systems, ranging from individual organisms to ecosystems to the planet as a whole.

This capacious view of health can be further understood by thinking about health at two scales: the group level and the individual level. Focusing on improving the outcomes for groups of individuals can involve grouping health in the following categories:

Planetary Health

Health of human civilization and the natural systems on which they depend. Focus on interconnections between human health and the health of the planet, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation.

Environmental Health

External physical, chemical, and biological factors that impact human health, including air and water quality, safe housing, and the management of waste and pollution.

Public Health

Preventing disease, prolonging life, and promoting health through organized community efforts, including epidemiology, biostatistics, and health services.

Global Health

Health issues and concerns that transcend national boundaries and require cooperative actions, addressing global health disparities, infectious diseases, and health policies.

Occupational Health

The health and safety of people in their workplaces, including physical, mental, and social well-being of workers in various industries.

Focusing on improving outcomes for individuals can involve grouping health into an alternative set of categories:

Physical Health

The overall condition of the body, including fitness, nutrition, and the absence of disease.

Mental Health

Psychological well-being, including emotional stability, cognitive function, and the ability to manage stress.

Social Health

The ability to form satisfying interpersonal relationships and adapt to social situations, maintaining social networks and support systems.

Financial Health

The management of an individual's financial resources, including income stability, savings, debt management, budgeting, investments, insurance, retirement planning, credit score, financial literacy, and emergency funds.

Regardless of the definition of health or technology that you use, it is clear that our ability to monitor, maintain, and restore functions of biological entities (i.e., humans and animals) and environmental systems (up to and including the entire planet itself) is highly reliant on the use of a wide range of processes, tools, and techniques (i.e., technology). This complicated intersection is at the core of our work.

5

New Oxford American Dictionary.

6

Christensen, Clayton M. The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press. 1997.

CORE RESEARCH THEMES

Digitalis Research is particularly interested in four interconnected areas that interact with critical emerging technologies and health in complex ways:

1. Technological Change

Modern technological systems are “complex, interconnected, automated, and opaque.” 7 So much so that, prior to 1990, the standard model of economic growth treated technology as an exogenous factor, that is, an external force that affects the economy but is not influenced by economic processes and thus not explainable by the model. In 1990, though, Paul Romer published a paper entitled Endogenous Technological Change that explained the production of new ideas (technology) as a product of economic activities and decisions. Romer described long-run economic growth as being built off of five properties:

7

Calculating Empires: A Genealogy of Technology and Power Since 1500. Kate Crawford and Vladan Joler. 2023

  1. The accumulation of ideas is the source of long-run economic growth.
  2. Ideas are non-rival.
  3. A larger stock of ideas makes it easier to find new ideas.
  4. Ideas are created in a costly but purposeful activity.
  5. Ideas can be owned and the owner can sell the rights to use the ideas at a market price.

In particular, Romer emphasized that:

“ideas”, though produced with capital and labor inputs, are different than ordinary goods and services along two dimensions: the extent to which they are rivalrous— whether they can be used by more than one actor at once—and excludable—how easy it is to prevent others from using them. Romer emphasized that ideas are non- rivalrous and, to a varying degree, excludable.

Romer also asserted that ideas go hand in hand with increasing returns to scale. They involve initially high costs, e.g., significant work for producing the blueprint (first copy) of a new product, but a more typical cost structure of (approximately) constant returns to scale for producing further copies. Hence, the overall production function is convex with falling marginal costs and one must therefore consider a departure from perfect competition.8

8

Scientific Background on the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2018. ECONOMIC GROWTH, TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE, AND CLIMATE CHANGE. The Committee for the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel

Romer’s focus on idea production and the causes of technological change is now firmly established as a core area of economic analysis, but much is left to understand about questions such as how different kinds of research are guided by market forces, how technological change comes about in different settings (i.e., commercial markets versus universities), and how much regulation may be required to direct market-based R&D toward the development of ideas that are beneficial to the general welfare of society.

Many questions that are often lumped into a broad category of “innovation” can, following Romer, be more rigorously thought about as questions of endogenous technological change. How do a society’s problem-solving abilities change over time? What is the optimal design of institutions to support step function technological changes?

2. Rules + Policy

When thinking about rules in the context of health, the most common defaults are to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the regulator of pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) which provides healthcare insurance coverage to 100 million Americans. This makes sense as the rules of FDA and CMS combine to largely determine which healthcare products are marketable and how much they will be sold for.

The general idea of a “rule,” though, can be read to encompass a wide-range of things including statutes, regulations, common law, guidelines, contracts, norms, corporate policies, and unspoken practices. At the intersection of health and technology, each of these rule categories applies, and each has tangible effect on health outcomes.

Digitalis Research is particularly interested in how rules create the context for innovation, finance, and justice in health and technology. For example, basic science research has become the subject of an increasingly open confrontation between those that view scientific knowledge as a common good to be shared and those that see it as a commodity to be exploited for private economic gain.

Scientists traditionally strive to be the first person to make an important discovery and communicate this advance in knowledge to the broader community.  The customary rewards for being first to discover include high-profile publications, important prizes, and more and easier grant funding. This framework for science is seen to drive the rapid and open communication and use of new knowledge.

Since the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 (a rule in the form of a statute), scientists who arrive at new knowledge first have, in addition to the customary rewards, an additional perk—the opportunity for their universities to own patents on their discoveries. The ownership of patents allows institutions (and individual scientists) to exploit their findings for their institutional (and personal) economic benefit.  This private benefit, though, slows the communication and may limit the use of that new knowledge. This framework for science allows the privatization of knowledge for the economic benefit of the discoverer.

Should there be profit in knowledge and how should our rules guide the balance between motivating private investment and supporting the public good?

3. Finance

Technology and innovation underpin finance. In order to manage risk and channel money from savers and investors to entities that need it, technologies arose that pooled risk and money across many, diverse people and organizations. The insurance contract is one example. Social security is another.

Peter L. Bernstein in his history of modern Wall Street describes finance as follows:

“Simply put, Wall Street shapes Main Street. It transforms factories, department stores, banking assets, film producers, machinery, soft-drink bottlers, and power lines into something that can be easily convertible into money and into vehicles for diversifying anonymous buyers or sellers. It makes hard assets liquid, and it puts a price on those assets that promises that they will be put to their most productive uses.


Wall Street also changes the character of the assets themselves. It has never been a place where people merely exchange money for stocks, bonds, and mortgages. Wall Street is a focal point where individuals, businesses, and even entire economies anticipate the future. The daily movements of security prices reveal how confident people are in their expectations, what time horizons they envisage, and what hopes and fears they are communicating to one another.” 9

9

Peter L. Bernstein, Capital Ideas: The Improbable Origins of Modern Wall Street, Free Press, 1992, p. 6.

Digitalis Research is particularly interested in how financial support for certain categories of technology (e.g., therapeutics) over others (e.g., research tools) impacts innovation and health.

How should we fund the unfundable to drive better health outcomes?

4. Equity

The advent of new technologies often outstrips our existing ethical and equity frameworks.  Society is then forced to revisit  basic normative issues such as the boundaries of privacy, the role of intellectual property, and even the definition of humanity.  In sorting out these normative issues, society must also figure out basic economic questions such as what incentives should be provided to encourage the discovery of new technologies, how much regulation should be applied to the development of new technologies, and how many resources should be allocated to the use of a given new technology. These decisions in turn determine how equitable is access to healthcare and how we go about addressing health disparities across communities.

Digitalis Research is particularly interested in how health is effected as a basic human right.

Are all public policies on some level health policies?

7

Calculating Empires: A Genealogy of Technology and Power Since 1500. Kate Crawford and Vladan Joler. 2023

8

Scientific Background on the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2018.ECONOMIC GROWTH, TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE, AND CLIMATE CHANGE.The Committee for the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel

9

Peter L. Bernstein, Capital Ideas: The Improbable Origins of Modern Wall Street, Free Press, 1992, p. 6.

Research Programs

The research models and focus set forth above provide the high-level context for the individual research programs undertaken by Digitalis Research.

There are three general criteria that all Digitalis Research programs share:

  1. All address a critical issue at the intersection of health and technology. 10
  2. All are directly impacted by the creation and application of new knowledge.
  3. All are relevant both in the short-term and in the very long-term. 11

10

Or, to quote Tim O’Reilly, work on stuff that matters.

11

The Long Now Foundation defines this in terms of now (3 days: yesterday, today, tomorrow), nowadays (30 years: last decade, this decade, next decade), and The Long Now (20,000 years).

General questions that motivate the creation of our research programs include:

  1. What problem are we thinking about?
  2. Who is affected by this problem?
  3. What is the current base of knowledge about this problem?
  4. If we weren’t addressing the problem as it is currently dealt with, is this the way we would start?
  5. What does the research enhance?
  6. What does the research make obsolete?
  7. Does the research retrieve something that was previously obsolescent?
  8. What happens when the research is pushed to extremes?

10

Or, to quote Tim O’Reilly, work on stuff that matters.

11

The Long Now Foundation defines this in terms of now (3 days: yesterday, today, tomorrow), nowadays (30 years: last decade, this decade, next decade), and The Long Now (20,000 years).

COLLABORATION

To collaborate on our research programs, please contact us at:

info@digitalisresearch.com

COMMUNICATION

To receive periodic updates on our work, please sign up below:

THANK YOU.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.