ꯁꯤꯟ-ꯁꯥꯔꯣꯜ ꯅꯩꯅꯕ ꯒꯤ ꯑꯃꯨꯛꯍꯟꯕꯥ ꯈꯦꯠꯅꯕꯥꯒꯤ ꯃꯔꯛ

The exact relations between science and technology in particular have been debated by scientists, historians, and policymakers in the late 20th century, in part because the debate can inform the funding of basic and applied science. In the immediate wake of [[World War II]], for example, it was widely considered in the United States that technology was simply "applied science" and that to fund basic science was to reap technological results in due time. An articulation of this philosophy could be found explicitly in [[Vannevar Bush]]'s treatise on postwar science policy, ''Science – The Endless Frontier'': "New products, new industries, and more jobs require continuous additions to knowledge of the laws of nature&nbsp;... This essential new knowledge can be obtained only through basic scientific research."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm#summary|title=Science the Endless Frontier|last=Bush|first=Vannevar|date=July 1945|website=|publisher=National Science Foundation|access-date=November 7, 2016}}</ref> In the late-1960s, however, this view came under direct attack, leading towards initiatives to fund science for specific tasks (initiatives resisted by the scientific community). The issue remains contentious, though most analysts resist the model that technology simply is a result of scientific research.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wise|first=George|year=1985|title=Science and Technology|journal=Osiris (2nd Series)|volume=1|pages=229–46|doi=10.1086/368647|postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research|last=Guston|first=David H.|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2000|isbn=0521653185|location=New York|pages=|quote=|postscript
== ꯄꯨꯋꯥꯔꯤ ==
{{Main article|History of technology|Timeline of historic inventions|Timeline of electrical and electronic engineering}}
"https://mni.wikipedia.org/wiki/ꯑꯈꯟꯅꯕ:MobileDiff/6865" ꯃꯐꯝꯗꯨꯗꯒꯤ ꯂꯧꯈꯠꯂꯛꯄꯥ