It’s often struck me when I talk of innovation that many people respond in terms of technology.

Gadgets. Toys. Apps.

But most advances in technology are preceded by breakthroughs in science.

So if we really wanted to go to the source, wouldn’t we start there?

I think some of the challenge for social innovators is that, for most of us, science seems a bit remote.

It exists in a silo that stands at a distance from the other silos into which daily life is divided. Work. Play. Environment. Politics. Faith. Technology.

And as fewer and fewer of us study science at school or university, we get our information about it second-hand from the media or popular culture.

White lab coats feature. So do impenetrable mathematical equations scratched out in chalk on a blackboard.

But science – like poetry – only seems remote. It draws its real power from meticulous observation and engagement with life.

As a consequence, many branches of science should be rich in suggestive possibilities for social innovators.

And they are. Take the study of how people learn. Research reported recently by New Scientist (1 May 2010, ‘You are what you copy’) sought to measure the effectiveness of a range of strategies which people employ to cope in unfamiliar situations.

These ranged from the parasitical copying of others (commonly known as freeloading) to innovation – the hard graft of finding out how to do things nobody else is doing.

The study was conducted as a tournament and its particular focus was on the balance competitors struck in their competitive strategies between innovation and learning (or copying). Was there a correlation between success and innovation – or between success and social learning?

Well, yes – and yes.

So what does this imply for social innovators?

A couple of observations come to mind.

One is that while the focus might be on what they do as ‘entrepreneurs’ or ‘innovators’, success in those roles is directly correlated to their capacity to learn from others.

Another is that sometimes what is learned is that something quite new is required in the circumstances.

A third is that copying and innovating exist in some kind of balance or relationship of equilibrium. Too much of one or the other unbalances the ecology. It can also ruin your chances of winning (in this tournament, at least!)

That highlights the critical role of judgement. How much innovation is enough?

“You have to weigh up the relative costs and benefits of sticking with the behaviour you have versus inventing a new behaviour, versus copying others," New Scientist continues.

“That requires assessing how quickly the environment is changing as this gives you an idea of how quickly information will become outdated.”

This confirms what successful innovators know. That successful innovations are both sensitive to their context and a calculated risk.

How risky?

Well, the same edition of New Scientist also reported on research by the Austrian economist Ernst Fehr which identified that low doses of testosterone promoted cooperation among players of economic games.

Does this mean that adding testosterone to the water supply now represents a viable strategy for promoting community harmony?

You could argue that doing the same thing for fluoride has done wonders for our teeth. Would testosterone do the same thing for world peace?

The context is not promising. Fehr’s findings challenged conventional wisdom on the role of this problematic hormone and provoked controversy as a result.

And I haven’t checked Betfair but my guess is they’d only offer long odds on this one.

So maybe it’s one innovation which will just have to wait for more favourable odds.

Oh... and further research!