How to work with scientists

In the last article, we talked about the importance of scientists for innovation in the knowledge economy. And the importance of facilitating communication between scientists and executives to favor and accelerate innovation, using the basic infrastructure we have.

In corporations, one of the main dilemmas of innovation is the delicate balance between the need to maximize profits in the short term (to meet the wishes of their shareholders) and the need to invest in innovations in the long term (to remain competitive and relevant). This dilemma, which is especially common among companies listed on the stock exchange, is known as the “fourth quarter dilemma”, and describes the pressure for companies to meet short-term financial targets at the expense of innovation and long-term investments.

In academia, we could say that the dilemma is the same, but in the other direction: the time needed to carry out scientific research and achieve results can be long and require large amounts of resources to understand complex problems. This is how we advance our understanding of complex natural and human issues. But these projects are difficult to manage, to demonstrate results and therefore to attract supporters and funds. This means that researchers can focus on more superficial issues, which are simple and easy to follow, but can make little progress in understanding complex problems. The strategy of dividing a long and complex piece of research into several smaller parts, which can be published more quickly, is pejoratively called ‘Salami Science’.

These dilemmas could be solved by academics and executives working together and making the most of what each can do best:

Academic scientists have extensive knowledge and experience in their fields of study, as well as a methodical and rigorous approach to research. They also generally have more time and freedom to explore complex and fundamentally unknown issues. On the other hand, corporate executives have the knowledge and skills to apply this knowledge to practical and commercial problems. They also generally have access to significant financial and human resources and are well placed to implement solutions effectively. When academic scientists and corporate executives work together, they can combine these skills and resources to achieve more significant and impactful results. This can include the discovery and development of new medicines, technologies and materials, as well as solving complex environmental and social problems.

By combining the knowledge and skills of both, they can achieve more significant and impactful results, allowing scientific discoveries to be applied more effectively and efficiently to solve real problems, helping to improve society and the economy. In addition, collaboration can also provide benefits for companies and universities, such as access to additional resources and expertise, and the creation of new markets and business opportunities.

But there are several barriers to this collaboration. The first is the lack of trust due to the possible commercial motivations of companies or the ability of academics to deliver practical and relevant results; the protection of intellectual property, with academics being more open about sharing their results and discoveries and executives being more restrictive, seeking to protect their intellectual property; cultural differences in values and ways of working, as academics tend to be more independent and value the freedom to choose their projects, while executives are more accustomed to working in teams and following established guidelines and goals; the difficulty of difficult communication, due to the different “languages” of academia and business; and finally differences in objectives, with academics tending to focus on advancing scientific knowledge, and executives tending to focus on maximizing profit.

So is it possible for academic scientists and business executives to work together on joint projects?

There are many examples of successful collaborations between academic scientists and business executives that prove that yes, both sides benefit from this collaboration. But in order to function, one group has to be aware of the other group’s challenges and dilemmas. For scientists, the main dilemmas are:

1. Funding: one of the main dilemmas for scientists is obtaining funding for their research. Funding can be difficult to obtain, and scientists can depend on government funding or on universities or private institutions. This can limit the possibilities for research and mean that scientists have to adapt to the needs of investors instead of following their scientific interests.
2. Research time: another dilemma is the time needed to carry out scientific research and achieve results. Scientific research can take years, and scientists need to be patient and persistent to achieve their goals. This can be challenging, especially when scientists feel pressure to publish results quickly.
3. Credibility and validation: scientists need to guarantee the credibility of their findings and ensure that their results are validated by other scientists. This can be challenging, especially when scientists are dealing with controversial topics or unexpected results. Scientists need to be careful to avoid publishing false or misleading results, and they need to follow ethical principles to ensure the reliability of their findings.

For executives, these dilemmas are:

1. Risk vs. return: one of the main dilemmas for executives is balancing risk and return in their decisions. They need to be able to weigh up the potential success of a project against the potential risks, and decide whether it is worth investing in. This can be challenging, especially when executives are dealing with innovative projects that present unknown risks.
2. Short-term vs. long-term: another dilemma is balancing short-term and long-term goals. Executives need to be able to plan strategically and ensure the long-term success of the company, while also meeting the immediate needs and pressure of investors and shareholders.
3. Innovation vs. stability: executives need to find a balance between innovation and stability. They need to be able to find new opportunities and innovate to ensure the long-term success of the company, but they also need to ensure that the company has a solid foundation and is prepared to face economic challenges. This can be challenging, especially when executives are dealing with an established company that is resistant to change.

These one-sided dilemmas, when mixed together, lead to the following conflicts:

1. Research time: the time needed to carry out scientific research and achieve results can be very long, while executives are under pressure to achieve immediate results and increase profits. This can lead to conflicts of interest, with executives putting pressure on scientists to achieve results quickly, while scientists need time to carry out their research properly.
2. Funding: Lack of funding can be a problem for scientists, while executives need to maximize profit. This can lead to conflicts of interest, with executives looking to invest in projects that guarantee a quick and high return, while scientists need funding to carry out their research properly.
3. Research direction: scientists generally have the freedom to choose the subject of their research, while executives need results that benefit their company. This can lead to conflicts of interest, with executives seeking to direct research towards topics that benefit their company, while scientists need the freedom to choose the topic of their research in order to advance knowledge.

To avoid these conflicts, scientists should try to learn more from executives about their competitive advantages:

1. Focus on the short term: executives are often under pressure to achieve immediate results and increase profits in the short term. This can conflict with practices in the academic world, where the search for new knowledge and discoveries is the main objective, and can take years to achieve. However, scientists should try to acquire a sense of urgency and strategic planning in order to achieve effective results for their research projects.
2. Individualistic work: executives are generally responsible for making decisions and leading projects, and this can be done in an individualistic way. This can conflict with practices in the academic world, where collaboration and knowledge sharing are fundamental. However, scientists should seek to acquire leadership skills and the ability to make effective decisions, as this is essential for leading research projects and achieving results.
3. Entrepreneurship: executives need to think entrepreneurially in order to make effective decisions and to ensure the success of their company. This can conflict with practices in the academic world, where the main objective is the advancement of knowledge and not necessarily profit. However, scientists should seek to acquire entrepreneurial skills, as these are essential for transforming their research projects into effective and innovative solutions to the world’s problems.

The same goes for executives, who could learn from scientists:

1. The constant search for new knowledge: scientists are constantly in search of new knowledge and discoveries, and this search is what drives them to carry out their research. This can conflict with practices in the corporate world, where the search for immediate results and profit can prevent long-term dedication to research. However, executives should seek to acquire this constant search for new knowledge, as it is essential for innovation and the long-term success of the company.
2. The critical spirit: scientists are trained to question everything and continually question their hypotheses and discoveries. This is fundamental for science, as it is the only way to advance and arrive at new knowledge. However, this practice can conflict with practices in the corporate world, where companies can feel threatened by this constant criticism. Executives should seek to acquire this critical spirit, as it is essential for identifying problems and opportunities for innovation.
3. Teamwork: scientists work as a team, collaborating and sharing knowledge to achieve their goals. This is essential for science, because it is collaboration that allows increasingly complex research to be carried out. However, this practice can conflict with practices in the corporate world, where internal competition can be encouraged. Executives should seek to acquire the ability to work as part of a team, as this is essential for achieving results and increasing efficiency.

These differences can be exacerbated by cultural differences between scientists and executives in different countries, but just as it is possible to find solutions to the differences between sectors of knowledge production, these barriers can also be overcome. And it’s essential that it is, because international collaboration is fundamental so that we aren’t limited by specific skills or infrastructure for research and development.

All companies are multinational, all universities are becoming multinational and all startups are born multinational.