Scientists have through centuries faced the layman’s question: What is the practical use of their theories and discoveries? Today, however, technology, that is that branch dealing with the application of scientific theories and discoveries, has developed to such an extent that we have begun to ask the question if we are going to neglect quality for the sake of quantity. It has been the fate of the scientist to face the constant demand that he should show his learning to have some practical use. In many a case, it is of no interest to him to have such a practical use to exist; to him, the delight of learning, of understanding, of probing the universe is its own reward. Today, the practical use of his learning has come to be appreciated so much that he is encouraged more than any one else to come out with theories and discoveries. That is to say, quantitative output is more than is qualitative worth.

Science in the twentieth century has had phenomenal development. This phenomenal progress of science is there in all its branches: physics, chemistry, medicine, eugenics, genetics, etc. It is true that his progress has resulted in science becoming a curse to an extent so far as destructive weapons like missiles and nuclear bombs are the products of science. All the same, there has been an international awakening of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. And as a result, there are international agencies today financing projects which can prove beneficial to mankind. The kind of world-wide encouragement which the scientists get and the chain of science laboratories and technological institutes started in developed and developing countries of late and the agricultural and industrial research centres that have come up with the help of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation and similar agencies and the financial assistance of the World Bank have resulted in a large number of theories that have not yet been put into use or even verified. For example, in genetics we have numerous theories which are passed on as discoveries. This is however not to belittle the importance of work already done in the field of genetics, especially in the evolution of high-yielding varieties of wheat and paddy which have been made available to the farmers and which to a great extent are responsible for the green revolution in India. But the question continues to be asked whether the increased quantity produced at the agricultural front is at the expense of quality, for the high-yielding varieties may lack the quality which traditional varieties, though low-yielding, have.

At the industrial front too this is true to a great extent. In olden days, the value of a manufactured article could be said to be directly proportionate to its quality. So, it attracted the attention of people because of its quality, and for the same reason became popular in the market. Manufacturers knew this and took steps to ensure its quality. Today, because of the phenomenal progress of science and technology, articles are mass-produced. The result is lower quality if compared to production on a smaller and more personal scale (though for many things, still higher in quality than for similar products produced a decade ago). Just consider one of the most ubiquitous of items: The watch. In most cases, no one would doubt that a hand-crafted Rolex would be of higher quality if compared to a mass-produced brand-less watch. But that brand-less watch would most likely be better than a watch produced a decade ago in terms of accuracy, simply because of the general advancement of technology.

Are there justifications for science and technology to lay emphasis on quantity rather than quality? In scientific research, a quantitative output in terms of theories and discoveries is certainly a help to the progress of science and technology itself. This is because only out of a large number of theories and discoveries can the right solution – which will be of use to mankind – emerge. This is particularly true of medical research. At medical conferences, newspapers and medical journals we read about theories regarding potential cures for cancer. In respect to quantity, these theories would rank high, yet there has not been any definitive cure for cancer so far discovered. But it is clear that among the tens and hundreds of hypotheses suggested annually, there will be one (or a few) that will work. The point is that without encouraging quantity, perhaps at the expense of quality, sometimes, no progress is possible.

Even for manufactured goods, there is an important reason for the stress on quantity: articles are made to meet the needs of people and there are far too many people who need these articles. Also, today, we are living in what Alvin Toffler, the author of Future Shock, calls a ‘ throw-away culture’ – where we have more or less discarded all those societal values associated with permanence and have welcomed the values appropriate to a fast-forming society based on transience. So, our minds are accustomed to the idea of using a product once or for a brief period and then, throwing it away. The products manufactured and marketed will have no lasting value; quality therefore suffers and quantity becomes important.

Already, the economics of permanence has been replaced by the economics of transience. In the past, permanence was the ideal, and man’s creative energies went towards maximising the durability of the product. Now, durability which was the basis of quality is ignored. This according to Alvin Toffler is due to three factors: “First, advancing technology tends to lower the costs of manufacture much more rapidly than the cost of repair work… Second, advancing technology makes it possible to improve an object as time goes by… Third, as change accelerates and reaches into more and more remote corners of society, uncertainty about future needs increases…”

The ideal is that science and technology should be concerned equally with quality and quantity, for without quantity – whether in terms of finished products or in terms of theories, discoveries and research itself – no qualitative progress in science and technology is possible. While it is true that the spur to technological inventions is mainly ‘demand-induced’ rather than ‘knowledge-induced’ and that most inventions are stimulated by a technical opportunity to serve a market, yet we have to see that quality vis-à-vis the utility of products does not suffer.

science, technology, concerned, quantity, quality