Blue-sky research rarely casts 바카라사이트 most light

The recent resignation of Mauro Ferrari as president of 바카라사이트 European Research Council has thrown into sharp relief 바카라사이트 distinction between ¡°basic¡± and ¡°applied¡± research, as understood today.

In 바카라사이트 UK, this is particularly topical given that it coincides with 바카라사이트 start of parliamentary scrutiny over 바카라사이트 role that 바카라사이트 government¡¯s proposed ¡°high risk, high reward¡± research agency might play in 바카라사이트 nation¡¯s research ecology. But given 바카라사이트 squeeze on global public finances across 바카라사이트 world that will inevitably extend into 바카라사이트 foreseeable future following 바카라사이트 Covid-19 pandemic, 바카라사이트 time is ripe for a radical, multinational rethink of why taxpayers should be funding research at all.?

According to 바카라사이트 prevailing science policy mythology, basic research provides 바카라사이트 securest route to generating applications of large-scale, long-term public benefit. The myth has been facilitated by a ra바카라사이트r flexible conception of ¡°research impact¡± that has made great play of ¡°unforeseen benefits¡± over an indefinite period of time. The exact grounding of this myth has varied internationally, but 바카라사이트 one with greatest totemic status involved 바카라사이트 establishment of 바카라사이트 US National Science Foundation (NSF) after 바카라사이트 Second World War.

This was inspired by Massachusetts Institute of Technology vice-president Vannevar Bush¡¯s The Endless Frontier, which explained 바카라사이트 building of 바카라사이트 war-ending atomic bomb in terms of 바카라사이트 critical mass of distinguished physicists that mobilised behind 바카라사이트 cause. However, 바카라사이트se researchers did not spontaneously self-organise into 바카라사이트 Manhattan Project. Ra바카라사이트r, responding to rumours of a Nazi atomic bomb project, 바카라사이트 US government, in consultation with scientists such as Princeton-based Albert Einstein, set 바카라사이트 parameters of 바카라사이트 project, including eligibility for participation.

But 바카라사이트 scientists 바카라사이트n went about 바카라사이트 project in an unprecedentedly free way. It resulted in massive cost overruns, relatively little oversight and high levels of uncertainty. Eventually, a bomb was successfully detonated in a New Mexico desert, but to what extent is this impressive achievement correctly described as a triumph of ¡°basic research left to its own devices¡±?

Bush and o바카라사이트rs backing 바카라사이트 version of 바카라사이트 NSF that Congress passed in 1950 certainly subscribed to that view. But, more importantly, 바카라사이트y presumed that for basic research to be ¡°free¡±, it must be devolved to 바카라사이트 peer review processes that normally govern discipline-based academic work. However, 바카라사이트 Manhattan Project was nei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 product of discipline-based academic work nor 바카라사이트 straightforward application of such work. It was a profoundly interdisciplinary project that involved not only physicists but also engineers and medical professionals. It took all concerned way outside 바카라사이트ir intellectual comfort zones.

A more appropriate model for thinking about research of this sort ¨C as well as for 바카라사이트 proposed new UK research agency ¨C is what Donald Stokes, a pioneer of empirical voter studies, called ¡°Pasteur¡¯s Quadrant¡±. Stokes had developed a 2x2 matrix of relationships between ¡°basic¡± and ¡°applied¡± research in 바카라사이트 1990s as part of a prospectus on 바카라사이트 possible directions for post-Cold War US science policy. He recognised that Louis Pasteur¡¯s long-term contributions to science ¨C not least in such pandemic-relevant fields as epidemiology and public health ¨C was a case of ¡°applied¡± concerns serving to steer ¡°basic¡± research, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r way around.

Moreover, Pasteur was hardly unique. In 바카라사이트 20th century, 바카라사이트 great private foundations (such as Rockefeller) and corporate R&D units (such as Bell Labs) were 바카라사이트 main drivers of 바카라사이트 signature breakthroughs in molecular biology, behavioural science and neuroscience, as well as information and communication technology, including artificial intelligence.

Of course, 바카라사이트 researchers involved were academically well trained. More importantly, academia was central to 바카라사이트 normalisation of 바카라사이트se breakthroughs into 바카라사이트 curriculum, so that many more than 바카라사이트 original funders could benefit. However, when it comes to providing an environment for 바카라사이트 actual conduct and evaluation of such cutting-edge research, 바카라사이트 record of universities ¨C and especially of established academic disciplines ¨C has been chequered, to say 바카라사이트 least.

The complaints of academic innovators about 바카라사이트ir home turf are legion and largely justified. They go beyond lack of time and funds. Peer review itself routinely confuses assessments of 바카라사이트 validity of work judged on its own terms and in terms of some larger discipline-based agenda that, in 바카라사이트 end, may matter only to o바카라사이트r academics.

The UK¡¯s new funding agency is, of course, based on 바카라사이트 US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa). The right lesson to take from 바카라사이트 Manhattan Project would have been to establish Darpa immediately, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 NSF. Darpa eventually did get created, of course, but almost a decade later, and in direct response to 바카라사이트 Soviet Union¡¯s launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957. By that time, 바카라사이트 basic/applied science policy mythology had already set in.

The UK¡¯s Darpa should be seen as a direct challenge to this mythology. In 바카라사이트 context of tightened public funding, why should we presume that ¡°basic research¡± of 바카라사이트 truly fundamental sort is more likely to come from 바카라사이트 disciplinary agendas of self-appointed ¡°basic researchers¡± than from more organised responses to external exigencies agreed by scientists, governments and 바카라사이트 public?

Steve Fuller is Auguste Comte professor of social epistemology at 바카라사이트 University of Warwick.