The use of basic science: Basic versus applied science

by C.H. Llewellyn Smith,
former Director-General of CERN

In industry the term "research" is frequently used to describe innovation with existing technology, which academic scientists would normally describe as development. This different use of the word "research" can lead to many misunderstandings. In this paper I use the word in the sense understood by academic scientists.

Misunderstandings also arise from the frequent assumption that advocates of the utility of basic science subscribe to the so-called "linear model" according to which basic research is supposed to lead to applied research, which in turn leads to industrial development and then to products. While there are many cases in which this has happened, it is also easy to find examples of advances in technology which have led to advances in basic science, such as that given by George Porter (Nobel Laureate in Chemistry) who pointed out that "Thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to science".

Unfortunately, such examples have led some people to advocate an anti-linear model. For example, Terence Kealey has recently written a book (ref. 5-6) arguing that economic progress owes nothing to basic science, which should therefore not be supported by governments. He points out correctly that the development of steam power, metallurgic techniques and textile mills which drove the start of the industrial revolution in England were based on scientific understanding and mechanical engineering principles dating from before the 17th century, and owed nothing to the 17th century scientific revolution (Newtonian mechanics, calculus, etc.). This is true, but it is certainly not true of many later industrial developments, as I hope the examples that I shall give later will demonstrate.

So the connection of science and technology is neither linear nor anti- linear, but in fact highly non-linear, and it has been claimed (ref. 7) that "historical study of successful modern research has repeatedly shown that the interplay between initially unrelated basic knowledge, technology and products is so intense that, far from being separate and distinct, they are all portions of a single, tightly woven fabric". Nevertheless a broad distinction can be made between science (~ knowledge) and technology (~ means by which knowledge is applied), and between different forms of science.

I do not like the terms basic and applied science: after all who can say in advance what is applicable? However, these terms can be useful provided they are defined in terms of motivation:

Basic science - motivated by curiosity
Applied science - designed to answer specific questions.

Given these definitions, I will later argue that governments have a special responsibility to fund basic science while applied science can generally be left to industry. The distinction is, of course, not always entirely clear cut, and the term "strategic research" is sometimes used to describe science in an intermediate category which appears to have a good chance of applications even if it is done to satisfy curiosity, and is leading to new fundamental understandings. An example is research on the properties of two-dimensional semiconductors.

The difference between basic, or pure, and applied science was beautifully illustrated by J.J. Thomson - the discoverer of the electron - in a speech delivered in 1916 (ref. 8):

"By research in pure science I mean research made without any idea of application to industrial matters but solely with the view of extending our knowledge of the Laws of Nature. I will give just one example of the 'utility' of this kind of research, one that has been brought into great prominence by the War - I mean the use of X-rays in surgery...

Now how was this method discovered? It was not the result of a research in applied science starting to find an improved method of locating bullet wounds. This might have led to improved probes, but we cannot imagine it leading to the discovery of the X-rays. No, this method is due to an investigation in pure science, made with the object of discovering what is the nature of Electricity."

Thomson went on to say that applied science leads to improvements in old methods, while pure science leads to new methods, and that "applied science leads to reforms, pure, science leads to revolutions and revolutions, political or scientific, are powerful things if you are on the winning side". The important and very difficult question for those responsible for funding science is how to be on the winning side.