Entry 800, on 2008-06-23 at 19:58:25 (Rating 1, Science)
Today I listened to a podcast about research on the properties of new materials being done at a New Zealand university. The researcher was asked why he did it: was it just the pure knowledge gained about materials we knew nothing about previously, or was it the possible applications of those materials in future technologies such as computing.
Of course there is only one answer a real scientist would give, and that is that its the pure research that really matters. In another interview I heard a while back now the researched actually said he regretted the way that potential practical applications might distort the pure research effort. But I'm not sure if he was totally serious because I think most researchers would like to see their work used to create new technologies.
But if science can't guarantee a practical benefit, especially one which can be exploited commercially, why should it be done at all? Research costs money after all, and often in the university context that's taxpayers' money. Shouldn't the researchers be obligated to produce something for the public good? Of course they should, but not in the narrow minded way most people understand the issue.
From this perspective there is no bad science. All new knowledge is good, even if it has no obvious practical application, and its important that pure research should be allowed to proceed without the need for commercial justification.
I'm not trying to say that bad science doesn't exist. It does exist in the context of poorly performed research where the results are distorted either through poor methodology or deliberate bias. I've seen this happen often enough in research into the paranormal - homeopathy being a good example. But I don't think there is bad science just because of the subject under study. All subjects are worthwhile and should be pursued.
And even if you wish to take the more narrow but pragmatic definition of public good its still impossible to tell which discoveries will lead to practical benefits. Even if a discovery is not directly used in a new technology its often used indirectly because one discovery often leads to another.
I think that if we followed the sequence of scientific discoveries which lead to any particularly technology we would find one discovery in that sequence which looks like its completely "useless". For example, what practical benefit is there in knowing about time distortion effects under extreme relativistic conditions? How about using that to correct GPS positioning information to give the ultimate precision.
New Zealand currently has almost nothing in funding dedicated to pure research of this type. Its about time that was changed. Practical research into better farming techniques is fine but that sort of thing will never change the world the same way as the really basic discoveries do. Are there any subjects science shouldn't study? No. There is no bad science.
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE