I hear my own frustrations in your comment, so I present the following observations and thoughts, enjoy.

The observations (and a 'bit' of opinion to be fair):

By solely pandering to industrial application we make the same assumption that economics makes, that supply = demand. But wait, is not the very purpose, and very definition of 'discovery' to find out things we dont know? or is this discovery rebranded to direct us to solve current problems? If the 'sights are narrowed too much' then you are letting your end points be dictated by things we know we already know we want. This results in the sacrifice all the myriad of possibilities (what we dont know) for singular possiblilities (current demand dictated by what we do know), with scientists 'crawling over each other' in competition for the same small 'pot of gold' (i.e. graphene anyone?)........This is because we currently 'think we know best', which is fair enough to a degree, or is it now all about the 'wants' of certain people who hold the big chequebook? (note I did not say 'needs').

If we had adopted this fantastic philosopy throughout history and threw out the lateral thought, then we would still be hunter-gatherers finding new ways to sharpen flint for spears and with no mammoths to hunt....intelligent life?

The valid counter-arguement:

If we do not have a certain 'balance' in the direction of current issues (some sort of more specific 'problem- directed research') we run the risk of floundering about doing 'vanity science' without solving current problems and throwing out resources....not exactly the hallmark of intelligent life. But then again, neither are the millions thrown at pop-stars....

My answer:

Balance. In my view it is simply that the balance has swung too far in one direction for now and there is not a lot that can be done about it in the short term - so I continue working on my fellowships and you on your grants, with any luck, we 'survive' to contribute knowledge another day.

I hear my own frustrations in your comment, so I present the following observations and thoughts, enjoy.

The observations (and a 'bit' of opinion to be fair):

By solely pandering to industrial application we make the same assumption that economics makes, that supply = demand. But wait, is not the very purpose, and very definition of 'discovery' to find out things we dont know? or is this discovery rebranded to direct us to solve current problems? If the 'sights are narrowed too much' then you are letting your end points be dictated by things we know we already know we want. This results in the sacrifice all the myriad of possibilities (what we dont know) for singular possiblilities (current demand dictated by what we do know), with scientists 'crawling over each other' in competition for the same small 'pot of gold' (i.e. graphene anyone?)........This is because we currently 'think we know best', which is fair enough to a degree, or is it now all about the 'wants' of certain people who hold the big chequebook? (note I did not say 'needs').

If we had adopted this fantastic philosopy throughout history and threw out the lateral thought, then we would still be hunter-gatherers finding new ways to sharpen flint for spears and with no mammoths to hunt....intelligent life?

The valid counter-arguement:

If we do not have a certain 'balance' in the direction of current issues (some sort of more specific 'problem- directed research') we run the risk of floundering about doing 'vanity science' without solving current problems and throwing out resources....not exactly the hallmark of intelligent life. But then again, neither are the millions thrown at pop-stars....

My answer:

Balance. In my view it is simply that the balance has swung too far in one direction for now and there is not a lot that can be done about it in the short term - so I continue working on my fellowships and you on your grants, with any luck, we 'survive' to contribute knowledge another day.

What is basic and applied Science? Are still boundaries present?

In my humble opinion the new technologies and their pace of development are changing everything. The reality is that nowadays we have to produce simply competitive Science by merging competences of people who are coming from different worlds. Research is becoming extremely complex and only by leveraging the specific expertise we can get accomplishments measurable in what we are looking for (grants, publications, patents etc.). When I started this work, it would be possible to make great publications in a single lab working hard. Now, the same solitary approach is extremely challenging. We tremendously need interactions to be competitive. The trend driven by the new technologies is making "cocktails" of competences, well shaken and diversely assembled, just to prepare the best possible product and get what we are looking for. In this context, still the pure Science will continue to survive and drive the discoveries even if this will occur in a new way and with more names and Institutions as authors.

As you have implied, my friend, Amritlal, researches and scientists should have larger concerns for major scientific contributions (basic and advanced alike) that could help progress all fields of knowledge.

Dear Amrit,

Your fine question is a theory versus practice question: if grant support favors research in sophisticated practice, how can a researcher engage in testing new basic theory? Everything depends on "grantsmanship": in applying for grants, you can point out that the latest sophisticated practice ultimately relies on basic theory and proceed from there. Your bibliography should show that you are up-to-date both in theory and in practice in formulating your grant proposal. Obviously, a universal researcher would be conversant in both. No theoretical research begins from zero.

I think we must recognize the difference between data gathering and scientific discovery. The ENCODE project and many GWAS projects are large data gathering exercises, but they do not necessarily lead to insight and discovery. All of this information may one day be useful, but we should also realize that there is a tremendous amount of noise in any complex biological system. Thus, it is paramount to separate out the noise from the mechanistic pathways, something that is not easy when doing whole genome analyses. Much of the translational studies done today are data gathering without any clear idea as to where it will lead.

Looking back, most every major breakthrough in biology was the results of a focused, reductionist approach in model systems. Paul Nurse used fission yeast to discover cell cycle regulators, Robert Horwitz used C. elegans to find genes that control apoptosis, Christianne Nuesslein screened for developmental patterning genes in flies, all of these approaches had one thing in common. They were essentially basic science expeditions using the best tractable organism for the question asked. I believe that real discovery can still come from single individuals with a good idea and the imagination to make it work. We must speak up and insure that funding for such individuals will still be available.

It is extremely important that research in basic sciences obtain specific results that can be used for the support for the development of other applied sciences.

Therefore, research in basic sciences must be oriented in order to obtain scientific responses to specific questions that are limiting or impeding that applied science can move forward in the solutions to the different problems that are impeding progress in the development of the these sciences. It is also important to consider the theoretical needs of the applied sciences, during the approval of fundamental research related to basic sciences.

In case that this close relationship between the research in basic sciences and in applied sciences can be identified, there is no need to adopt other commitments to have access to new funds required to finance research related to basic sciences. The reason is very simple: because these resources will also help obtaining theoretical responses to the different problems that are limiting or impeding progress in the development of applied sciences.

Jorge, the problem is that much of basic science research cannot predict how it will impact the development of applied technology. The applications come later once we understand how things work. Examples abound, who would have thought that Daniel Nathans' work on some obscure DNA cutting enzymes in E. Coli would lead to a revolution in recombinant DNA and cloning.

Gregory, the problem as I see it is the following: You have two lines of research in basic sciences. One is a theoretical development of the basic sciences as such, which could or not has practical applications in one or more of the applied sciences. Your aim is the development of the basic sciences as such and you are not thinking that perhaps you can find a scientific response to a specific problem of the applied science. Here the main question is the following: At this stage of development of the basic sciences this research is necessary or can wait, if funds are limited? If funds are available, then why not, given then to support this type of theoretical research.

The second is when you start a research in basic sciences, having in mind the search for a scientific response to problems limiting or impeding the development of the applied sciences. In this case you cannot exclude to end up finding a scientific response to a theoretical problem affecting a particular basic science, but this was not planned, just happens. For this type of research funds should be available, because the result could be important to the humankind either in one way or another.

In our fast developing/progressing time the basic Research that is done in "the early morning" can be the application in the "late afternoon". This is a very simplified view, but funding organisations should take into account that Basic Research is a very sustainable task.

The "pure vs applied" debate is very old in mathematics and the physical sciences --- biology is simply a late-comer. I, as I'm sure with many here, have worked in both capacities and what can be observed in biology so far tracks pretty well with establishment. Without commenting directly, there is a position that tends to develop which can be best appreciated by reading GH Hardy's essay "A mathematician's apology". Ultimately, I don't think such a philosophy is correct. Society is best served by a balance of both, the position basically advocated by Freeman Dyson in his "Birds and Frogs" essay (birds being those who examine broad and abstract vistas and frogs, who look at specific problems that may have practical application). Many, like V I Arnold, have argued "pure vs applied" is a false debate and that there is no real distinction. Cancer genomics is a good example in biology of this thesis. It is both basic research (in trying to understand cancer biology) and applied research (in actively translating discoveries to clinical use). In the end, we as scientists have to reconcile with the constant risk that our work may eventually not be in sync with current social priorities and that scientific areas eventually mature. These are the dynamics that tend to dry-up the soft money supply. As science is a Darwinian enterprise, one adapts, or perishes...that is, except the mathematicians, who only need a pad of paper and a pile of #2 pencils ;)

First, I express my heartfelt thanks to all the contributors for such thoughtful and interesting fine comments.

@ Duncan: Your thoughts and ideas seem really interesting and in perfect alignment with my thoughts especially the valid counter-argument.

@ Drs. Cristiano and Winfried: I like the way you described and identified what is basic and what is applied. Great contributions!

@ Profs. Nelson and Kamal: As usual your comments are always great and very analytical. Applied research has its strengths and its deep rooted foundation in the basic research. The balance is important either in terms of scientific contribution or grant support from government agencies.

@ Prof. Marwan: I agree with you. As long as the fruit of the research is being utilized for our well being we are good.

@ Profs Gregory: The simple example you cited regarding how Daniel Nathans' basic work successfully translated into applied recombinant DNA technology and cloning is really great.

Regards,

No, but ofcourse everything seems round around money in this world. Hope someday in future this money will be replaced by something legitimate thing for survival.

Some organisations such as the Third World Academy of Sciences have recognized the significance of basic science research. They do not fund agriculture or medicine related projects.

I do not think so

@Amritlal, sorry for late response! My short contribution is that the basic science research should not compromise at all regarding funding! Fundamental research should not be market driven! Any such compromise would mean twilight of basic science and fundamental research!

Dear Mandal, my problem is that I do not have any opportunity to win grant in Malaysia as I am international here and have to use my knowledge, work hard to get result and make paper for others (myself as co-author). Fortunately, my Prof is very good and nice guy allowed me to use his grant and have some papers (first author). Any way here is much more better than my country as we didn't have any facility, any machine to make good research and publications. TQ Malaysia, developed me from zero to hero.

Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science

American science, long a source of national power and pride, is increasingly becoming a private enterprise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html?_r=0

That NYT article is a little disappointing on several accounts. First, it will mislead any reader not already familiar with the history of science policy and funding. It implies that non-governmental underwriting of research is an entirely new paradigm (there is even a section called "A New Template"), which is patently false. Historically, most research was private or conducted under patronage (the Church, noblemen, wealthy merchants, etc). The modern government-centered system is relatively recent, tracing back to the National Defense Research Committee in WWII. The other disappointing aspect is the tone of the article, which suggests that there should be some governmental oversight of how/where the private money from these individuals goes.

Basic research are quite necessary to unfold many new features of science. I think research in all aspects should be funded and emphasized. A lot of hard work is being made by researchers all around the globe to make life better in all aspects.

I disagree with @Dr. Iva Ninova Kuznetsova. Many argue that knowledge and research that can't be applied to harvest real life benefits is of no use. Moreover, politicians who pave path for new grants also are mostly interested to know the tangible benefits that would bring a research to the society and the common people.  This is the reason, basic science research compromise significantly to win more fund support as nothing  works even the scientists without smooth funding.

Applied science is important but is getting attention in this decade like an explosion. Basic science is getting less attention, that is why a large number of applied science organizations are not successful. Only those laboratories or companies which have a very strong basic science but good team with applied science workers are successful. Many people want to cut corners and jump to applied science without having very strong basic scientists, i.e., harvesting the crop, they are mistaken, they will fail, anyway, at the end.