The search for innovations is the main motives researches are done. And in one single action more than one big innovation can be found. People who produce such comments that nothing new will be found is probably that kind of people that prefer to blame luck, coincidence, spellls for his problems. For not getting to an argument with such a person I would tell him everytime he got sick that the pill he is going to have was a magic I learned from someone.

Otherwise research won't be ORIGINAL, dear Satyabrata, if originality is a question here!

The search for innovations is the main motives researches are done. And in one single action more than one big innovation can be found. People who produce such comments that nothing new will be found is probably that kind of people that prefer to blame luck, coincidence, spellls for his problems. For not getting to an argument with such a person I would tell him everytime he got sick that the pill he is going to have was a magic I learned from someone.

My understanding is that research can remain pretty abstract. Innovation is rather a technological usage made possible of some research. I'm not sure that analyzing the supposedly organic molecular compounds of the nucleus of 67/P (i.e. a fantastic endeavor) will necessarily lead to some innovations, though it will deliver probably new fundamental results. Some domains are more prone to delivering innovation than others (e.g. engineering, computer science, etc.) and fundamental research in Maths might not be delivering innovations too often, though obviously an important field as well.

Neither all researches lead to creativity or innovation, nor all innovations come from researches. Research and innovation are two separate topics. In fact, some innovations do come from or resulted from researches.

Every research should lead to new results, but weather these results are applicable or not is another issue. For example, in Mathematics, there are no expectations to get innovative stuff from research.

Dear Kamal,

I completely agree with you that innovation needs research validity and reliability.

Thank you all for your kind analysis. Nice reply by Vilemar. Prof. Marwan, that's the big issue. All researchers should respect that thing. Dr. Patrice, yes true. That fundamental results will be a backbone for further innovations. Prof. Kamal and Prof. Judeh, both of you are correct. I hope more and more research work should result in a small/big innovations.

Innovation is the research result, but not every research brings to innovation! 

"Technology innovation covers innovation derived from research and technology developments that are independent of product and service initiatives...."

http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/innovation_technology.html

Well, on this issue I am on the radical side. Innovation and research are -at their best - be taken as radical innovation and basic research. Important as it is in daily life, incremental innovation is basically trivial for good research - whence research is defined by the effort to push back the frontiers of knowledge.

A research is supposed to lead to new contribution to human knowledge but the size of this contribution could be small or medium or large. If research results in solving a big problem, then it is a breakthrough. In the present time, most of the research does not lead to major outputs. Innovations may come out of research but there are many examples in which innovations came suddenly such as the discovery of Teflon or Tefal. However, there was the brilliant scientist  Roy Plunkett who followed up the white material which gathered in the tetraflouroethylene gas cylinder, proved that it is a plastic, and then prepared it for utilization.  

In Focus: RRI - Responsible Research and Innovation

Responsible research and innovation is an approach that anticipates and assesses potential implications and societal expectations with regard to research and innovation, with the aim to foster the design of inclusive and sustainable research and innovation. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) implies that societal actors (researchers, citizens, policy makers, business, third sector organisations, etc.) work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society. In practice, RRI is implemented as a package that includes multi-actor and public engagement in research and innovation, enabling easier access to scientific results, the take up of gender and ethics in the research and innovation content and process, and formal and informal science education. [European Commission]...

http://www.rri-tools.eu/

https://wbc-rti.info/

WHERE DOES SCIENTISTS’ INSPIRATION STEM FROM?

A personal reflection of the many sources of inspiration driving scientists!

"Inspiration is a foggy and yet fascinating preoccupation of scientists. Many wish to be inspired and inspire others: their students, their peers and the public. Yet, this state of mind may collide with their assumed rationality, their objective identities. How can your ideas come from inspiration in a frosty world of observation, impartiality and analysis? The problem may be that scientists assume that emotions and inspiration are closely related. And, strangely, they may feel embarrassed by that connection. Thus, to search for inspiration may seem like a transgression.

Ultimately, scientists develop ways of exploring or creating something new and valuable. Such experiences, involving people or feelings that may not always be easily described, are central to the process of scientific discovery and innovation..."

Read more: http://www.euroscientist.com/scientists-inspiration-stem/#ixzz4AE2Nr1iL

Follow us: @euroscientist on Twitter | Euroscientist on Facebook