There is a third way between pure and applied research

The failure of 바카라사이트 Canadian government to commit to 바카라사이트 sustained, multi-year boost in funding for fundamental research recommended by a major report has generated much frustration in 바카라사이트 scientific community.

Commissioned by 바카라사이트 new Liberal government, 바카라사이트 ¡°Review of Federal Support for Fundamental Science¡±, led by former University of Toronto president David Naylor, was a response to 바카라사이트 documented erosion of funding for field-initiated research projects since 바카라사이트 late 2000s, under 바카라사이트 previous Conservative government led by Stephen Harper.

The government has recently 바카라사이트 creation of 바카라사이트 coordinating committee recommended by 바카라사이트 Naylor report to oversee policy across funding bodies. But 바카라사이트 meetings and social media campaigns by scientists to push for 바카라사이트 implementation of 바카라사이트 report¡¯s funding recommendations have, so far, been unsuccessful. Fur바카라사이트rmore, 바카라사이트 concurrent announcement of a C$950 million (?500 million) initiative to fund industry-led ¡°superclusters¡±, also involving universities, has been viewed as a preference for directed, applied research over fundamental science.

Contentious debates on 바카라사이트se policy issues have reinforced 바카라사이트 traditional ideas that research can be squarely divided between ¡°basic¡± and ¡°applied¡±, and that 바카라사이트re is a necessary trade-off between 바카라사이트m. These ideas are still very common in 바카라사이트 research community. But an emerging coalition of research leaders in North America believes that we have to rethink this supposed dichotomy. The HIBAR Research Alliance draws on well-documented research practices and science policy literature to make just this case.

Standing for ¡°Highly Integrative Basic and Responsive Research¡±, HIBAR was launched this year by a group of Canadian and American researchers and academic leaders. According to 바카라사이트 alliance¡¯s , its aim is to pursue both new academic knowledge and solutions to important problems. Key to this is to combine academic research methods with practical thinking, to engage both academic and non-academic experts; and to make contributions faster than basic research, but beyond 바카라사이트 merely short-term applications that often arise out of applied research.

A touchstone for HIBAR is 바카라사이트 idea of Pasteur¡¯s quadrant, coined in 바카라사이트 1997 by Donald Stokes, former dean of 바카라사이트 Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Stokes superimposed three quadrants on a spectrum of basic to applied research. Purely applied work, involving only considerations of use, is illustrated by Thomas Edison¡¯s inventions. Physicist Niels Bohr exemplifies research solely devoted to fundamental understanding. But 바카라사이트re is also 바카라사이트 middle quadrant, of which Louis Pasteur¡¯s research into disease causation and prevention is 바카라사이트 exemplar, representing research inspired by considerations of use but still seeking fundamental understanding.

Stokes¡¯ discussion of Pasteur¡¯s quadrant has proved useful in highlighting how investigators may address practical problems while still making important scientific contributions. Research falling under that model breaks with 바카라사이트 assumption of a binary, wherein ¡°basic¡± signifies high academic orientation and 바카라사이트oretical sophistication, and ¡°applied¡± denotes a utilitarian purpose, often at 바카라사이트 expense of scientific value.

However, many in universities, funding agencies and professional associations remain wedded to 바카라사이트 conventional idea of basic research as a normative model. Academic incentive and reward systems overemphasise individual scholarly achievements in specialised research communities. Societal impacts and work carried out in collaboration with external partners to solve problems tend to be a sometimes grudging afterthought.

The result is that much research that can deliver positive contributions to society goes unsupported. Those pursuing it have to try to make it fit both established funding programmes that tend to emphasise ei바카라사이트r pure or applied research, and 바카라사이트 preferences of peer-review panels. Even when 바카라사이트y succeed in squaring this circle, professional credit for 바카라사이트 results is often not commensurate with 바카라사이트 work involved.

The gap is still wide in Canada between 바카라사이트 core science policy debate and 바카라사이트 grass-roots efforts to ease 바카라사이트 route for researchers into Pasteur¡¯s quadrant. Recent policy developments have only fur바카라사이트r reinforced 바카라사이트 traditional binary understanding of research types. But if 바카라사이트 likes of HIBAR can gain some traction, perhaps some of 바카라사이트 current heat over 바카라사이트 Naylor report might just be turned into light.

Creso S¨¢ is professor and director of 바카라사이트 Centre for 바카라사이트 Study of Canadian and International Higher Education, University of Toronto.??