Science and Universities: Shilling for a Living?

Abstract

The experimental quest for the philosopher’s stone was the search for a universal catalyst that would “guarantee” the results of any transformation. Among the alchemists the “goal became to strip metals of their properties, thus reducing them to prime matter, and then to impose the qualities of gold on the resulting undifferentiated mass.”¹ Once the process of transformation had been mastered, the next challenge was multiplicative. Given one kilogram of gold, how does one produce two, three and more kilograms? Transforming base elements into noble ones was a demonstration of the perfection inherent in the environment. The difference between the before and after states of an element was one of kind not of degree. Centuries of failure in their misguided endeavors taught one valuable lesson: transformation in appearance is not equivalent to transformation in essence — it remains to be seen whether similar lessons will be learnt during any radical transformation in higher education. Cadences of alchemical experimentation are curiously familiar in a world where universities themselves talk about the value of hybrid research and teaching models and the need for replication of successes. The universities must have their traditional roles and structures pared down, reducing them to primarily technoscience institutions better conditioned to accept industrial partnerships, product relevance and marketplace alignment.