Basic research

From HandWiki
Short description: Scientific discovery and improvement of scientific knowledge
Part of a series on
Science
Essence
Branches
  • Society

Basic research, also called pure research, fundamental research, basic science, or pure science, is a type of scientific research with the aim of improving scientific theories for better understanding and prediction of natural or other phenomena.[1] In contrast, applied research uses scientific theories to develop technology or techniques which can be used to intervene and alter natural or other phenomena. Though often driven simply by curiosity,[2] basic research often fuels the technological innovations of applied science.[3] The two aims are often practiced simultaneously in coordinated research and development.

In addition to innovations, basic research also serves to provide insight into nature around us and allows us to respect its innate value.[4] The development of this respect is what drives conservation efforts. Through learning about the environment, conservation efforts can be strengthened using research as a basis.[5] Technological innovations can unintentionally be created through this as well, as seen with examples such as kingfishers' beaks affecting the design for high speed bullet train in Japan.[6]

Overview

Despite smart people working on this problem for 50 years, we're still discovering surprisingly basic things about the earliest history of our world. It's quite humbling. — Matija Ćuk, scientist at the SETI Institute and lead researcher, November 2016[7]

Basic research advances fundamental knowledge about the world. It focuses on creating and refuting or supporting theories that explain observed phenomena. Pure research is the source of most new scientific ideas and ways of thinking about the world. It can be exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory; however, explanatory research is the most common.[citation needed]

Basic research generates new ideas, principles, and theories, which may not be immediately utilized but nonetheless form the basis of progress and development in different fields. Today's computers, for example, could not exist without research in pure mathematics conducted over a century ago, for which there was no known practical application at the time. Basic research rarely helps practitioners directly with their everyday concerns; nevertheless, it stimulates new ways of thinking that have the potential to revolutionize and dramatically improve how practitioners deal with a problem in the future.[citation needed]

History

By country

In the United States, basic research is funded mainly by federal government and done mainly at universities and institutes.[8] As government funding has diminished in the 2010s, however, private funding is increasingly important.[9]

Basic versus applied science

Main pages: Applied science and Translational research

Applied science focuses on the development of technology and techniques. In contrast, basic science develops scientific knowledge and predictions, principally in natural sciences but also in other empirical sciences, which are used as the scientific foundation for applied science. Basic science develops and establishes information to predict phenomena and perhaps to understand nature, whereas applied science uses portions of basic science to develop interventions via technology or technique to alter events or outcomes.[10][11] Applied and basic sciences can interface closely in research and development.[12][13] The interface between basic research and applied research has been studied by the National Science Foundation.

A worker in basic scientific research is motivated by a driving curiosity about the unknown. When his explorations yield new knowledge, he experiences the satisfaction of those who first attain the summit of a mountain or the upper reaches of a river flowing through unmapped territory. Discovery of truth and understanding of nature are his objectives. His professional standing among his fellows depends upon the originality and soundness of his work. Creativeness in science is of a cloth with that of the poet or painter.[14]

It conducted a study in which it traced the relationship between basic scientific research efforts and the development of major innovations, such as oral contraceptives and videotape recorders. This study found that basic research played a key role in the development in all of the innovations. The number of basic science research[clarification needed] that assisted in the production of a given innovation peaked between 20 and 30 years before the innovation itself. While most innovation takes the form of applied science and most innovation occurs in the private sector, basic research is a necessary precursor to almost all applied science and associated instances of innovation. Roughly 76% of basic research is conducted by universities.[15]

A distinction can be made between basic science and disciplines such as medicine and technology.[10][11][16][17][18] They can be grouped as STM (science, technology, and medicine; not to be confused with STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics]) or STS (science, technology, and society). These groups are interrelated and influence each other,[19][20][21][22][23] although they may differ in the specifics such as methods and standards.[11][16][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]

The Nobel Prize mixes basic with applied sciences for its award in Physiology or Medicine. In contrast, the Royal Society of London awards distinguish natural science from applied science.[37]

See also

References

  1. ↑ "What is basic research?". National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1953/annualreports/ar_1953_sec6.pdf. 
  2. ↑ "Curiosity creates cures: The value and impact of basic research , National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health.
  3. ↑ "ICSU position statement: The value of basic scientific research" , International Council for Science, December 2004.
  4. ↑ Yong, Ed (2022). An Immense World. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-593-13324-8. OCLC 1333131287. https://worldcat.org/oclc/1333131287. 
  5. ↑ Cook, Carly N.; Mascia, Michael B.; Schwartz, Mark W.; Possingham, Hugh P.; Fuller, Richard A. (2013-04-10). "Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary" (in en). Conservation Biology 27 (4): 669–678. doi:10.1111/cobi.12050. ISSN 0888-8892. PMID 23574343. Bibcode: 2013ConBi..27..669C. 
  6. ↑ "High Speed Train Inspired by the Kingfisher — Innovation — AskNature" (in en-US). https://asknature.org/innovation/high-speed-train-inspired-by-the-kingfisher/. 
  7. ↑ Jacqueline Ronson (November 1, 2016). "Why is the Earth Tilted? New Theory Offers Clues on a Dizzy Moment". Inverse. https://www.inverse.com/article/23062-earth-moon-history-axis-tilt. 
  8. ↑ Ganapati, Priya (2008-08-27). "Bell Labs kills fundamental physics research". Wired. https://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/08/bell-labs-kills.html. Retrieved 2008-08-28. 
  9. ↑ William J. Broad (March 15, 2014). "Billionaires with big ideas are privatizing American science". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html. 
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Davis, Bernard D. (March 2000). "Limited scope of science". Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 64 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000. PMID 10704471.  & "Technology" in Bernard Davis (Mar 2000). "The scientist's world". Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 64 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000. PMID 10704471. 
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 James McCormick (2001). "Scientific medicine—fact of fiction? The contribution of science to medicine". Occasional Paper (Royal College of General Practitioners) (80): 3–6. PMID 19790950. 
  12. ↑ Gerard Piel, "Science and the next fifty years", § "Applied vs basic science", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1954 Jan;10(1):17–20, p 18.
  13. ↑ Ruth-Marie E Fincher, Paul M Wallach & W Scott Richardson, "Basic science right, not basic science lite: Medical education at a crossroad", Journal of General Internal Medicine, Nov 2009;24(11):1255–58, abstract: "Thoughtful changes in education provide the opportunity to improve understanding of fundamental sciences, the process of scientific inquiry, and translation of that knowledge to clinical practice".
  14. ↑ "What is basic research?". National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1953/annualreports/ar_1953_sec6.pdf. 
  15. ↑ Stephan, Paula (2012). How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 146. ISBN 978-0-674-04971-0. 
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Richard Smith (Mar 2006). "The trouble with medical journals". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99 (3): 115–9. doi:10.1177/014107680609900311. PMID 16508048. 
  17. ↑ Leon Eisenberg (Mar 1988). "Science in medicine: Too much or too little and too limited in scope?". American Journal of Medicine 84 (3 Pt 1): 483–91. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(88)90270-7. PMID 3348249. 
  18. ↑ J N Clarke; S Arnold; M Everest; K Whitfield (Jan 2007). "The paradoxical reliance on allopathic medicine and positivist science among skeptical audiences". Social Science & Medicine 64 (1): 164–73. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.038. PMID 17045377. 
  19. ↑ Eric Holtzman (1981). "Science, philosophy, and society: Some recent books". International Journal of Health Services 11 (1): 123–49. doi:10.2190/l5eu-e7pc-hxg6-euml. PMID 7016767. 
  20. ↑ P M Strong PM; K McPherson (1982). "Natural science and medicine: Social science and medicine: Some methodological controversies". Social Science & Medicine 16 (6): 643–57. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(82)90454-3. PMID 7089600. 
  21. ↑ Lucien R Karhausen (2000). "Causation: The elusive grail of epidemiology". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3 (1): 59–67. doi:10.1023/A:1009970730507. PMID 11080970. 
  22. ↑ K Bayertz; P Nevers (1998). "Biology as technology". Clio Medica 48: 108–32. PMID 9646019. 
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 John V Pickstone; Michael Worboys (Mar 2011). "Focus: Between and beyond 'histories of science' and 'histories of medicine'—introduction". Isis 102 (1): 97–101. doi:10.1086/658658. PMID 21667777. 
  24. ↑ Lester S King (May 1983). "Medicine in the USA: Historical vignettes: XI: Medicine seeks to be 'scientific'". JAMA 249 (18): 2475–9. doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03330420025028. PMID 6341631. 
  25. ↑ Thomas Marshall (Apr 1997). "Scientific knowledge in medicine: A new clinical epistemology?". Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 3 (2): 133–8. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00075.x. PMID 9276588. 
  26. ↑ A Zalewski (Mar 1999). "Importance of philosophy of science to the history of medical thinking". Croatian Medical Journal 40 (1): 8–13. PMID 9933889. https://www.cmj.hr/1999/40/1/9933889.htm. 
  27. ↑ Kevork Hopayian (May 2004). "Why medicine still needs a scientific foundation: Restating the hypotheticodeductive model—part two". British Journal of General Practice 54 (502): 402–3. PMID 15372724. 
  28. ↑ A Skurvydas (2005). "New methodology in biomedical science: Methodological errors in classical science". Medicina 41 (1): 7–16. PMID 15687745. https://medicina.kmu.lt/0501/0501-02e.htm. Retrieved 2015-03-08. 
  29. ↑ Ronald A Arky (2007). "Abe Flexner, where are you? We need you!". Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association 118: 89–96. PMID 18528492. 
  30. ↑ Peter Byass (2011). "The democratic fallacy in matters of clinical opinion: Implications for analysing cause-of-death data". Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 8 (1): 1. doi:10.1186/1742-7622-8-1. PMID 21223568. 
  31. ↑ M Brandon Westover; Kenneth D Westover KD; Matt T Bianchi (2011). "Significance testing as perverse probabilistic reasoning". BMC Medicine 9: 20. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-20. PMID 21356064. 
  32. ↑ Alfredo Morabia (2005). "Epidemiological causality". History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 27 (3–4): 365–79. PMID 16898206. 
  33. ↑ Michael Kundi (July 2006). "Causality and the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence". Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (7): 969–74. doi:10.1289/ehp.8297. PMID 16835045. 
  34. ↑ Andrew C Ward (2009). "The role of causal criteria in causal inferences: Bradford Hill's 'aspects of association'". Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations 6: 2. doi:10.1186/1742-5573-6-2. PMID 19534788. 
  35. ↑ Georg W Kreutzberg (May 2005). "Scientists and the marketplace of opinions: Scientific credibility takes on a different meaning when reaching out to the public". EMBO Reports 6 (5): 393–6. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400405. PMID 15864285. 
  36. ↑ John Worrall (Apr 2010). "Evidence: Philosophy of science meets medicine". Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (2): 356–62. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01400.x. PMID 20367864. 
  37. ↑ "Medals, Awards & Prize lectures", The Royal Society website, accessed 22 Sep 2013.

Further reading

  • Levy, David M. (2002). "Research and Development". in David R. Henderson. Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (1st ed.). Library of Economics and Liberty. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/ResearchandDevelopment.html.  OCLC 317650570, 50016270, 163149563



Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Basic_research&oldid=3712550"