Research: Basic versus Applied

The IT letter by Peter Gallagher and Emma Teeling reminds me of a small bit of bother I got into back in the early nineties. At the time, the Irish Research Scientists Association was pushing the basic research agenda and I wrote a letter to the Irish Times making a very gentle ‘criticism’ of their approach. I think they felt I was not ‘on message’ and was perhaps letting the side down.

I’ve absolutely nothing against basic research per se. Most of it is far more interesting than run-of-the-mill applied stuff. I’d much rather read an article on black holes than one on smart phones. The point I made actually related to the final sentence of Gallagher and Teeling’s letter: “Fundamental research is not a luxury item that should only be funded during good times, but forms the very basis for applied science and innovation, without which our smart economy will flounder”.

As someone whose formal training is in chemical engineering, I have always viewed this as a very simplistic view of the relationship between basic and applied research. Often, the flow of ideas is in the opposite direction, i.e., the need to solve practical problems reveals a lack of basic knowledge, opening up whole areas of basic research as a result. Basic and applied research then proceed together. The example I gave back in the nineties was of chemical engineers’ contribution to the thermodynamics of the liquid state, something that was driven by the very practical need to design distillation columns. I’m sure the physics community can quote lots of similar examples from late nineteen century physics, especially in areas like electromagnetism. No doubt synthetic chemists can point to lots of industrial and medical problems that drove new synthesis techniques.

My point is that just because a project is focused on a specific problem does not mean that the research is somehow derivative and won’t lead down entirely unanticipated, and perhaps fruitful, pathways.


About Greg Foley

A lecturer in Biotechnology in Dublin City University for more than 25 years. Trained as a Chemical Engineer in UCD (BE and PhD) and Cornell (MS). Does research on analysis and design of membrane filtration systems.
This entry was posted in Research. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Research: Basic versus Applied

  1. Pingback: Ninth Level Ireland » Blog Archive » Research: Basic versus Applied

  2. cormac says:

    Yes, but nobody is proposing to cut back on funding for research into specific , and applied problems. What they are cutting back on dramatically is funding for fundamental research, and that is also important – this is Peter;s point

    • foleyg says:

      My point was not really about funding per se but really concerned the arguments that people make for why the state should fund basic reasearch. The usual argument is that basic research leads to the applied research (and products) of the future and while that might be true occasionally, I was just making the point that a lot of so-called ‘applied research’ is not derivative in any way and really involves basic and applied research happening simultaneously. For what it’s worth, my view is that the state should fund very basic research for the same reason it funds the arts and humanities. No one should expect research on bats or black holes to lead to products.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s