Politics of Basic and Applied Research
How Should Politicians Strike an Appropriate Balance
Oct 6, 2009
We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster
--Carl Sagan
As humanity grows ever-more dependent on technological developments, the call to support only ventures that seem likely to result in short-term, practical applications has increased, The media encourage this outlook, presenting new scientific endeavors only in terms of how they may change people’s lives in the near future. Often these presentations are reasonable, as in the case of stem cell research. Occasionally, this borders on the absurd; in 1998, when the then time Senator and former Astronaut, John Glenn, rode into space on the Shuttle Discovery's STS-95 mission, journalists hyped medical studies performed on weightlessness at two points in his life, thirty-six years apart, as if they might provide major scientific insights into osteoporosis and various other conditions of aging.
Needless to say, they did not. And yet, numerous other experiments flew within the “SpaceHab” module on the same flight –less publicized, but each with a rational scientific objective. During the mission, astronauts released an instrument called SPARTAN 201 into free space, providing valuable data on solar wind, which have since helped engineers to reduce disruptions of communications and power supplies on Earth. Similarly, the Phobos-LIFE experiment, slated for launch into interplanetary space in 2011 to test the Transpermia Hypothesis, may provide insights ;leading to practical applications.
Historically, Basic Research has Led to Surprises
Examples of research for the sake of understanding with no obvious immediate practical advantage are numerous. Newton’s Laws in the 17th century, Maxwell’s Equations in the 19th, quantum theory and the elucidation of DNA structure in the 20th –each of these breakthroughs eluded the general public, completely, when they were announced. They did not draw the attention of politicians, any more than the discovery of steam power in Hellenistic Egypt might have suggested to Ptolemaic bureaucrats that such powers might be harnessed to move people and freight swiftly over land and sea. While the latter realization would take fifteen centuries and would happen in a different land, generally we assume that applications derive more quickly from theory these days.
What does the Future Hold?
But can we be certain, in all cases? Biotechnology is developing at warp speed, but what of String Theory, in physics, which posits that people and objects could shift dimensions, making instantaneous trips across the universe, and even time-travel, possible –in theory? Will it take between fifteen centuries and eternity before people can move themselves to anywhere, based on principles outlined in String Theory? Or might some technological development, akin to the transistor, beckon to allow such journeys, and who knows what else, within fifty years –if only some obscure applicant to a National Science Foundation grant program is given just a little more funding, tomorrow?
Throughout the United States and the world, there are many smart people with many creative ideas, but there is not enough money to support all of them. Given how the history of science and technology is full of surprises, when deciding which research projects to fund and, importantly, when to fund research at such a basic level that no practical applications are obvious, luck may play a vital role. In this case, the role of policy makers is to make educated guesses, supporting “applied research” that experts agree will lead to feasible technologies, but also supporting basic research. Perhaps, the usefulness of the latter could be evaluated by extremely insightful “futurists”, individuals of the likes of Professor Stephen Hawking, or the late Arthur C. Clarke.
Futurists Must Work Closely with Governments
Perhaps, in cases when potential benefits of pure, knowledge-seeking research is being assessed for funding, such futurists could be recruited to work more often with policy makers than they do currently. This idea may sound preposterous, yet as capable as some lawmakers are in the 21st century, with a U.S. population 150 times what it was in the thirteen colonies during the American Revolution, there should be on the order of 1,000 Washingtons, Adamses, Jeffersons, and Madisons in Congress –meaning more than the total number of legislators, or people who run for president every four years– but there aren’t. No, for today such minds generally are employed outside of government, as Carl Sagan noted, on several occasions. Some might propose now that the time has come for such individuals to join the ranks of government once again.
 |
