Social value of basic science research - Revision history

Riceissa: typo

2014-10-10T19:28:23Z

typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:28, 10 October 2014
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Until the nineteenth century, basic science research was generally done in spare time by people who had other day jobs (examples are mathematician Pierre Fermat, chemist John Dalton, and biologist Gregor Mendel). In the present era, this sort of "science-on-the-side" model has fallen out of favor, and basic scientific research is generally done by people in [[academia]]. Therefore, to some extent, evaluating basic science research is similar to evaluating academia (see more on [[academia as a career option]] and [[social value of academia]]).		Until the nineteenth century, basic science research was generally done in spare time by people who had other day jobs (examples are mathematician Pierre Fermat, chemist John Dalton, and biologist Gregor Mendel). In the present era, this sort of "science-on-the-side" model has fallen out of favor, and basic scientific research is generally done by people in [[academia]]. Therefore, to some extent, evaluating basic science research is similar to evaluating academia (see more on [[academia as a career option]] and [[social value of academia]]).

	There are some areas of research that fall within the realm of science research but are sufficiently close to application that it is inaccurate to characterize them as basic science research. Examples ~~including~~ machine learning and artificial intelligence research (see [[social value of working in artificial intelligence and machine learning]]) and [[biomedical research]] (see [[biomedical research as a career option]] and [[social value of biomedical research]]).		There are some areas of research that fall within the realm of science research but are sufficiently close to application that it is inaccurate to characterize them as basic science research. Examples include machine learning and artificial intelligence research (see [[social value of working in artificial intelligence and machine learning]]) and [[biomedical research]] (see [[biomedical research as a career option]] and [[social value of biomedical research]]).

	See also:		See also:

Vipul at 21:35, 23 March 2014

2014-03-23T21:35:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:35, 23 March 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{social value\|basic science research}}

	This page discusses the value of doing basic science research that is not geared to immediate application. Almost ''all'' mathematics research is of this sort, and a significant fraction of physics, chemistry, and computer science research also fits this model.		This page discusses the value of doing basic science research that is not geared to immediate application. Almost ''all'' mathematics research is of this sort, and a significant fraction of physics, chemistry, and computer science research also fits this model.

Vipul: /* Bacon's chain */

2014-03-23T05:11:42Z

Bacon's chain

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:11, 23 March 2014
Line 48:		Line 48:
	Government funding <math>\to</math> Basic research <math>\to</math> Advanced technology <math>\to</math> Economic growth		Government funding <math>\to</math> Basic research <math>\to</math> Advanced technology <math>\to</math> Economic growth

	However, Niskanen and some others have argued that ~~very~~ link in the chain is flawed. In particular, the link from basic science to advanced technology has been argued to be weak. Henderson quotes David P. Billington's ''The Tower and the Bridge: The New Art of Structural Engineering'' to offer an explanation for the link from basic research to advanced technology being weak:		However, Niskanen and some others have argued that every link in the chain is flawed. In particular, the link from basic science to advanced technology has been argued to be weak. Henderson quotes David P. Billington's ''The Tower and the Bridge: The New Art of Structural Engineering'' to offer an explanation for the link from basic research to advanced technology being weak:

	{{quotation\|There is a fundamental difference between science and technology. Engineering or technology is the making of things that did not previously exist, whereas science is the discovering of things that have long existed. Technological results are forms that exist only because people want to make them, whereas scientific results are formulations of what exists independently of human intentions. Technology deals with the artificial, science with the natural.}}		{{quotation\|There is a fundamental difference between science and technology. Engineering or technology is the making of things that did not previously exist, whereas science is the discovering of things that have long existed. Technological results are forms that exist only because people want to make them, whereas scientific results are formulations of what exists independently of human intentions. Technology deals with the artificial, science with the natural.}}

Vipul at 19:47, 15 March 2014

2014-03-15T19:47:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:47, 15 March 2014
Line 99:		Line 99:

	The most impressive examples above, as you can see, come from people whose work is in areas that are already close enough to application, even if their main research is not itself applied.		The most impressive examples above, as you can see, come from people whose work is in areas that are already close enough to application, even if their main research is not itself applied.

			==Resources==

			* [http://www.vannevargroup.com Vannevar Group] is a group of scientists and former scientists who are interested both in science and social value.

Vipul at 19:45, 15 March 2014

2014-03-15T19:45:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:45, 15 March 2014
Line 5:		Line 5:
	There are some areas of research that fall within the realm of science research but are sufficiently close to application that it is inaccurate to characterize them as basic science research. Examples including machine learning and artificial intelligence research (see [[social value of working in artificial intelligence and machine learning]]) and [[biomedical research]] (see [[biomedical research as a career option]] and [[social value of biomedical research]]).		There are some areas of research that fall within the realm of science research but are sufficiently close to application that it is inaccurate to characterize them as basic science research. Examples including machine learning and artificial intelligence research (see [[social value of working in artificial intelligence and machine learning]]) and [[biomedical research]] (see [[biomedical research as a career option]] and [[social value of biomedical research]]).

	==Should there be more basic science research?		See also:

			* [[Social value of mathematics research]]
			* [[Social value of physics research]]
			* [[Social value of computer science research]]
			==Should there be more basic science research?==

	===Societies that engage in basic science research===		===Societies that engage in basic science research===

Jsinick: /* Basic science and high-impact science */

2014-03-15T17:41:12Z

Basic science and high-impact science

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:41, 15 March 2014
Line 57:		Line 57:
	We look at explorations of the question: How strong is the overlap between basic science and high-impact science? Is all high-impact science the sort that is likely to be immediately applied?		We look at explorations of the question: How strong is the overlap between basic science and high-impact science? Is all high-impact science the sort that is likely to be immediately applied?

	===~~Most~~ high-impact science is not basic science===		===Nowadays most high-impact science is not basic science===

	Consider the following most impressive instances of progress in human health and wealth arising from scientific breakthroughs in the late 19th and early 20th century:		Consider the following most impressive instances of progress in human health and wealth arising from scientific breakthroughs in the late 19th and early 20th century:

Jsinick: /* Most high-impact science is not basic science */

2014-03-15T17:38:59Z

Most high-impact science is not basic science

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 15 March 2014
Line 62:		Line 62:

	* The development of flight, leading eventually to commercial flight		* The development of flight, leading eventually to commercial flight
	* The development of the nuclear bomb
	* The development of vaccines		* The development of vaccines
	* The Green Revolution		* The Green Revolution
	* Breakthroughs in computing technology (including the ideas of programming languages and compilers)		* Breakthroughs in computing technology (including the ideas of programming languages and compilers)
	* Improvements in computer hardware		* Improvements in computer hardware
			* The development of nuclear power (the impact here remains to be seen)

	Note that:		Note that:

Jsinick: /* Basic science as a springboard for people to move to other areas */

2014-03-15T16:37:40Z

Basic science as a springboard for people to move to other areas

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 15 March 2014
Line 90:		Line 90:
	* Donald Knuth, a theoretical computer scientist, is known as the father of the analysis of algorithms. He worked in many applied areas, and also created TeX, one of the earliest typesetting languages that is still used by mathematicians around the world to format their documents.		* Donald Knuth, a theoretical computer scientist, is known as the father of the analysis of algorithms. He worked in many applied areas, and also created TeX, one of the earliest typesetting languages that is still used by mathematicians around the world to format their documents.
	* A number of science popularizers have day jobs as academics. These include Carl Sagan, Keith Devlin, and others.		* A number of science popularizers have day jobs as academics. These include Carl Sagan, Keith Devlin, and others.
	* Machine ~~learnin~~ researchers have, in recent years, left academia to join companies such as Google and Facebook. Some have taken part-time appointments at these companies while still maintaining some academic connections.		* Machine learning researchers have, in recent years, left academia to join companies such as Google and Facebook. Some have taken part-time appointments at these companies while still maintaining some academic connections.
	* Many professors have part-time jobs as consultants at companies that are working on products closely related to their area of research.		* Many professors have part-time jobs as consultants at companies that are working on products closely related to their area of research.

	The most impressive examples above, as you can see, come from people whose work is in areas that are already close enough to application, even if their main research is not itself applied.		The most impressive examples above, as you can see, come from people whose work is in areas that are already close enough to application, even if their main research is not itself applied.

Vipul: /* Bacon's chain */

2014-03-15T16:07:05Z

Bacon's chain

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 15 March 2014
Line 50:		Line 50:

	{{quotation\|[S]cience seems to accumulate mainly on the basis of past science, and technology primarily on the basis of past technology.}}		{{quotation\|[S]cience seems to accumulate mainly on the basis of past science, and technology primarily on the basis of past technology.}}

			The Cato Unbound discussion [http://www.cato-unbound.org/issues/august-2013/who-pays-science Who Pays for Science?] (August 2013) is also relevant.

	==Basic science and high-impact science==		==Basic science and high-impact science==

Vipul: /* Basic science and high-impact science */

2014-03-15T15:54:23Z

Basic science and high-impact science

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 Point (2) could be interpreted in either of two ways. It could be viewed as saying that basic science has value for the far future, and therefore is likely to be underproduced by our short-sighted society, so it makes sense at the margin to produce basic science. On the other hand, it could be argued that the significant uncertainty and huge time lag before basic science gets used suggest that it's not that high value to produce more basic science at the margin. Moreover, a lot of basic science doesn't get used in any technology ''at all''. Unlike with applied science, it's hard to know in advance what basic science will get used. Unless you believe you have special insight on what basic science will be valuable, this is an argument against basic science research.
 In the blog post [http://80000hours.org/blog/5-high-impact-science High Impact Science], Carl Shulman argues that for some forms of high impact science, even speeding up scientific progress by a few seconds can generate huge humanitarian impacts. The examples cited by Shulman are the Green Revolution and the fight against diseases such as malaria: speeding up the process of development of hybrid varieties or the process of malaria eradication by one year can save thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of lives.
 Does Shulman's argument extend to basic science research? If there were a ''fixed'' lag between the development of the basic science research and the applied science or technology that used it, then the argument would extend. If making a scientific breakthrough in 2015 instead of 2019 meant that the corresponding technological breakthrough would occur four years earlier, then all the gains from speeding up the technological breakthrough apply to speeding up the scientific breakthrough. But this rarely describes the real world: the constraining factor for the timing of technological breakthroughs is ''not'' the amount of time the required basic science has been in circulation. Rather, demand for that technology, availability of funding, availability of other requisite technologies, and stochastic elements are more important.