Pennings, J.M. and Hariento, F.

(1992) Technological networking and innovation

implementation. Organization Science 3(3): 356-382

Perrow, C. (1984) Normal Accidents: Living with high risk technologies. New York:
Basic Books

Portes, A. (2000) The hidden abode: sociology as analysis of the unexpected American
Sociological Review Vol. 65 (February): 1-18

Rappleye, W.C. (1997) Science and serendipity. Financial World, 20 May 1997, Vol
166(5): 99

Richtel, M. (2004) All thumbs, without the stigma. CNET news.com (12 August)

Roberts, R.M. (1989) Serendipity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rumelt, R. and Wensley, R. (1980) In search of the market share effect. Working Paper
MGL-61, University of California, Los Angeles

Schrage, M. (2004) Prepared minds favor chance. Technology Review July/August, p. 16.
(www.technologyreview.com)

Simonton, D.K. (2004) Creativity in Science: Chance, Logic, Genius and Zeitgeist.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Skinner, Q. (2000 [1985]) Introduction: the return of grand theory. In the Return of
Grand Theory in the Human Sciences by Q. Skinner (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

Slowiczek, F. and Peters, P.M. (2004) Discovery, chance, and the scientific method.
Access Excellence Classic Collection.
(www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/chance.html)

Tolson, J. (2004) A word’s eventful journey. U.S. News & World Report Vol 136(4): 51

van Andel, P. (1994) ‘Anatomy of the unsought finding: Serendipity: origin, history,
domains, traditions, appearances, patterns, and programmability’. British Journal of the
Philosophy of Science, 45: 631-648

van Andel, P. and Bourcier, D. (2001) ‘Serendipity and abduction in proofs,

presumptions, and emerging laws’, Cardozo Law Review, 22: 1605-1620.

van de Loo, E. (2000) Crosstalk: The clinical paradigm: Manfred Kets de Vries’s
reflections on organizational therapy: an interview by Eric van de Loo. European
Management Journal, Vol. 38(1): 2-22.

27
Watson, J.D. (1999 [1968]) The Double Helix. London: Penguin

Watson, J.D. and Crick, F.H.C. (1953) ‘A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid’, Nature
(3), 171: 737-738

Werth, B. (1994) The Billion Dollar Molecule. New York: Simon and Schuster

1
Thus conceived, serendipity is not inconsistent with Burt’s (2004) ‘brokering’ of structural holes in social
networks so as to generate new ideas. According to Burt (2004: 349-50), “people who stand near the holes
in a social structure are at higher risk of having good ideas…New ideas emerge from selection and
synthesis across the structural holes between groups”. Thus, Burt also places agency squarely at the centre
of idea generation. “To be sure, ideas come over a variety of paths from a variety of sources […], but idea
generation at some point involves someone moving knowledge from this group to that, or combining bits of
knowledge across groups” (Burt, 2004: 356).
2
From The Serendipity of Science, a series of radio programmes aired between 15 and 29 August 2002 at
9.02pm on Radio 4. Produced by Simon Singh. The author acknowledges the kind help of Simon Singh in
making his interview transcript with Dr Ian Osterloh available.
3
Ely Lilly, in collaboration with ICOS Corporation, referred to three documents – two journal articles and
a PhD dissertation – each of which was considered ‘prior art’ and independently could have warranted the
invalidation of Pfizer’s patent for lack of novelty. In fact, the tribunal uncovered a copy of one of these
articles, marked by a Pfizer scientist with: ‘Should we not try out [sildenafil citrate] in impotence?’ Thus,
Lilly claimed that Pfizer had done little more than to put into practice the suggestions offered in these three
documents. The UK High Court of Justice, in November 2000, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and revoked
Pfizer’s patent. Viagra’s discovery was considered inevitable.
4
But of course, not all serendipitous discoveries are equally valuable. Christopher Columbus, for instance,
never had the sagacity to recognize the significance of his discovery. As Roberts explains, he died a
disappointed man, “believing he had found new areas of the Orient rather than a new continent” (1989: 5).
Ironically, Columbus’ calculations grossly underestimated the size of the earth, yet legitimized his decision
to sail West in an effort to reach the Indies. His calculations, which were far less accurate than those of the
sages of Salamanca, proved useful in discovering America precisely because they were so far off the mark.
“And so you see how complicated life is, and how fragile are the boundaries between truth and error, right
and wrong…Columbus, while he was wrong, pursued faithfully his error and proved to be right – thanks to
serendipity” (Eco, 1999: 7).

28