Innovation Via Serendipity, Errors, and Exaptation

Yaqub (2018) explained that most experimental research either fails altogether or results in something unexpected. The following discussion highlights three distinct kinds of unanticipated innovations: those that came about serendipitously, erroneously, and via exaptation. In addition to providing example discoveries, the perceived meaning of each category is also articulated. Finally, concluding remarks are provided to summarize the main takeaway points.

Serendipitous Innovation: The Microwave

            According to Nair (2014), part of the aftermath of World War II (WWII) was focused on the wide-spread production of magnetron. Originally developed by the British, magnetron technology was used by the Allies of WWII to support radar transmissions. It was during this time that Percy Spencer, a United States engineer employed at a magnetron production facility, stumbled upon something unpredicted. While working on an active radar set, Spencer noticed that the chocolate candy bar he had in his pocket began to melt. From there, Spencer used the radar to test what would happen to popcorn and an egg, and following some comical explosions, he continued to explore the possibilities. Spencer eventually fashioned a metal box so that the magnetron could be contained inside. The resulting high density electromagnetic field was demonstrated to quickly raise the temperature of the input food. Soon, a patent was filed for the microwavable cooking process and shortly thereafter, a Boston-based restaurant began using a microwave oven to expedite their services.

            What does serendipity mean to me? As described by Van Andel (1994), serendipity is the art of the unsought. It means paying attention to ones surrounding environment, observing the little details, and being cognizant of changing conditions. As such, it requires an open and perceptive mind.

Innovation from Error: The Pacemaker

            Beck et al. (2010) explained that the year was 1956 and Wilson Greatbatch, an electrical engineer, was working to support the Chronic Disease Research Institute in their cardiac research efforts. Greatbatch was tasked with the assembly of a marker oscillator, a device meant to record the sounds of rapid heartbeats and needed a ten-thousand-ohm resister to complete the circuit. However, instead of grabbing the needed resister, Greatbatch mistakenly picked up the wrong one and ended up installing a resistor of one million ohms into his device. At this point, the oscillator turned on and began to operate in a rhythmic pattern, producing short repetitive pulses with a resting interval of one second. Greatbatch immediately recognized that the rate of these pulses was akin to that of the human heart. Flash forward a few years later and after multiple tests and fine-tunings, Greatbatch’s device was implanted into a human recipient to overcome atrioventricular (AV) block and support normal cardiac functioning.  

            What does an erroneous invention mean to me? Leveraging the insights of Deb (2020), the only real mistake comes from a failure that is not viewed through a lens of learning. Although it may not yield a new discovery, a research error can inspire a new outlook or, at the very least, clarify a process unworthy of repetition. As such, this type of innovation requires an optimistic outlook and a strong work ethic that is undeterred by the prospect of setting out on new terrain.

Innovation from Exaptation: The Slinky Toy

            Reif-Acherman (2015) traced the origins of the Slinky to Richard James, a naval engineer, working in a Philadelphia shipyard during the 1940s. The metal springs, created by winding 20 meters of flexible flat steel wire into coils of about seven centimeters in diameter, were designed to support and stabilize fragile pieces of nautical equipment during times when a ship was fighting stormy sea conditions. As the story holds, James accidentally knocked one of the springs off the shelf and, instead of hitting the ground with a simple bounce, he witnessed it move across the floor in a continuous end-over-end walking tumble. With some creative marketing, the support coils were named Slinky, which according to Nair (2014) means sleek and sinuous in Swedish, and launched as the “it” toy of the 1945 Christmas season.

            What does exaptation mean to me? Blending some of the concepts previously discussed, repurposed inventions are the result of an open and dedicated mind that is not afraid to break from the confines of an established mold. As such, it requires creativity and initiative.

Reflections and Lessons Learned:

            As I ruminate upon the history of these happy accidents and the literature surrounding their discoveries, I find that a resonating quote by Louis Pasteur really helps to guide my reflections: “chance only favors the prepared mind.” The three presented examples, while each reflective of a slightly different turn of events, share many common themes. For example, unanticipated outcomes are transformed into useful innovations only when they are thoughtfully and thoroughly pursued. Each of the described discoveries all required further research and/or modifications to reach their most successful state. This is important to highlight because, as noted by Friedel (2001), simply attributing the innovations to pure chance diminishes the hard work and other positive characteristics embedded within the process. Chance alone can only do so much; sincerity, perseverance, creativity, and intuition come together to do the rest.

References

Beck, H., Boden, W. E., Patibandla, S., Kireyev, D., Gupta, V., Campagna, F., … & Marine, J. E. (2010). 50^th anniversary of the first successful permanent pacemaker implantation in the United States: Historical review and future directions. The American Journal of Cardiology, 106(6), 810-818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.04.043

Deb, T. (2020). Failed inventions. Science Reporter, (Nov-2020), 14-19. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/55543

Friedel, R. (2001). Serendipity is no accident. The Kenyon Review, 23(2), 36-47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4338198

Nair, A. G. R. (2014). Accidental discoveries. Vetri Education, 9 (2), 45-55. http://vetrieducation.herokuapp.com/Vetri%20Journal/Vetri_Journal_vol9_2.pdf

Reif-Acherman, S. (2015). Toys as teaching tools in engineering: The case of Slinky. Ingeniería y Competitividad, 17(2), 111-122. http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/inco/v17n2/v17n2a11.pdf

Van Andel, P. (1994). Anatomy of the unsought finding. Serendipity: Origin, history, domains, traditions, appearances, patterns and programmability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45(2), 631-648. http://www.jstor.org/stable/687687

Yaqub, O. (2018). Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 47(1), 169-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.007