The lack of basic science, humanities, arts and natural history in the scientific formation of society will have huge negative impacts on what makes a free society, and what makes us human - mainly regarding ethics and well-being. Paraphrasing Konrad Lorenz " In other words, you leave out everything that makes a pigeon a pigeon, a rat a rat, a man a man, and, above all, a healthy man healthy and a sick man sick."

As a behavioral health clinician and researcher, I prefer research applications out of the lab and into the actual world.

Rich

As a researcher I have firm believe that today's research should be highly in-lined with everyday problem solving. It can aid policy makers and planning committees for taking practical steps toward welfare and betterment of society in every aspect including physical infrastructure, curriculum development, social awareness or preventive campaigns, skills training etc.

That's a very good question, Alex Córdoba-Aguilar.

In the UK the research councils have been integrated into innovation that attends to practical gains (https://www.ukri.org/), so the push is for more applied science or basic science with an applied view. However, as much as the application of research to address current-day problems can seem to be the best way to spend public money, thereby tangibly serving the public good, we must remember that it is often discoveries of a fundamental, basic kind that drive our catalytic step-changes in scientific progress.

Darwin did not set out to solve health problems, but his basic theoretical research contributed to a tectonic shift in our understanding of genetic inheritance, including insights into disease and health that established modern biomedicine. Similarly, Crick and Watson sought basic discovery of the vehicle of inheritence, DNA. Application -- as far as I can tell -- was in the background, not foreground. Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetism, Einstein's relativity, Bohr's quantum theory, all basic science. Yet, each has given science major leaps in understanding that have changed the world in which we live, through others' application of their basic work.

So yes, absolutely, there's a place for application and application is immensely rewarding because its utility can be readily seen, felt, and measured. But we must preserve a place for basic science, truly basic science that seeks disovery for discovery's sake. Because it is down one of these unknown roads that the next quantum leap will take place. So let's keep them open. We need both.

I believe that as a researcher in psychology i have great opportunity to conduct inquiry into anything, of current problematic nature or otherwise and need not feel the pressure to divert all attention to solving current problems. It is the basic, random, creative research that keeps information available that myself and others can then apply to solve problems.

I have no doubt that EVENTUALLY results that emerge from basic science research can be used to solve some problems that humanity faces. The tricky thing here is that some (most) of these problems require faster and more direct solutions. Think of the coronavirus, global change and biodiversity crises. Perhaps we need to twist our research a little bit precisely to tackle such situations

The lack of basic science, humanities, arts and natural history in the scientific formation of society will have huge negative impacts on what makes a free society, and what makes us human - mainly regarding ethics and well-being. Paraphrasing Konrad Lorenz " In other words, you leave out everything that makes a pigeon a pigeon, a rat a rat, a man a man, and, above all, a healthy man healthy and a sick man sick."

Thanks Rhainer. I don't mean producing no basic science at all but making a bit less basic science especially for those that only produce basic science. In countries with very limited resources (eg. mine, Mexico), one can invest time and energy to provide some hope to people.

One of my criticism of the pattern of education of traditional institutions such as the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico or the Universidad de Los Andes (Venezuela, where I was educated), is precisely its historic emphasis on basic research. Unfortunately, the majority of the institution where serious research is done, are traditional universities. I believe that recent times require our efforts to solve the real problems of the people; then we need more institutions evolving to nontraditional ones, and a growing number of scientists working on applied science.

I do feel the same Alex. I am doing more aquaculture studies, besides pure ecology/environmental science.

On your comment, I think that the question is not about basic or applied science, I think that as university professors, we have the obligation to ensure that students have the best background, so that they can generate quality and reliable data.

We must train it as flexible and creative people, capable of facing problems of different kinds, either basic or applied, I believe that in countries like ours, such training would allow them to expand their job opportunities to the young doctors we are training and that unfortunately, They don't have many options in the strictly academic world.

Many of my students are working in the environment in organizations such as UNDP, or NGOs dedicated to conservation, others as teachers in higher schools that are not linked to biological science, but to careers such as tourism, or are independent consultants and of course what they follow in the academic world that as you know is very competitive.

I believe that the new generations should be more inclusive in their way of doing "science", better results will be achieved

I agree with Misael. Current forms of how we teach in different universities, leave no space for solving problems that humanity and planet face. Look at coronavirus, for example. As for Khuong s comment, I am also trying to do half and half

I believe in a balance between applied science and basic science. Science has to be at the service of the people, solving specific problems that guarantee their sovereignty. But sovereignty also means generating knowledge in all branches of science. I believe that beyond basic or applied science, what is essential is that we do with the knowledge generated.

I believe that socio-environmental problems are complex and must be addressed from various disciplines (transdiscipline). These problems go beyond any discipline, therefore both basic and applied science are necessary to solve complex problems. Let us go beyond scientific reductionism.

I think that your approach may be misleading. Let's imagine that you like to drive a car, because it helps you quickly get from one place to another and solve various of your personal needs. Under this scenario, you might think that everyone needs to know how to drive a car. But this approach makes you forget something more important: who and how was the car you are using made? The same thing happens with the discussion of the importance of dedicating ourselves more to applied or basic science. And the answer is simple: WE NEED BOTH! Those who do basic science must continue and we must train new scientists focused on this type of science. We also need to have scientists doing applied science and train new scientists in those areas. Let's be careful with the false dilemma.

Certainly, no applied science can be developed without a sound basic research. Besides, very few researchers can switch their interest from the basic to applied one easily, whilst without this interest it is easy to loose motivation and productivity.

It is clear that basic research becomes more and more expensive and getting funded is increasingly difficult, even in rich countries. Applied science though can generate public interest, commercial applications, etc. Cancer research, for example, attracts huge public funds and private donations, and so current research on cancer is extraordinarily intensive. Unfortunately, the public fails to appreciate the importance of environmental conservation and therefore its funding is scarce...

I think we all agree that we need both basic and applied science. However, I understand and share the initial question with Alex: how can we be more inclusive in terms of basic and applied approaches in how we address an issue?

As Zaal said, no applied science can be developed without sound basic research. But I am also convinced that applied science can stimulate basic questions and therefore feed basic research. The huge challenges our societies face (e.g. biodiversity crisis) will probably need fundamental changes that will require new paradigms and concepts, not only adjustments. In this perspective, I think that the boundaries between 'basic' and 'applied' is not always obvious.

As you suggest Alex, I think we should better recognize the interest of combining basic and applied science into our programs and make the academic system more inclusive. The debate of basic researchers 'doing real science' vs. applied researchers 'finding real solutions' should be avoided.