The use of basic science: Why governments must support basic science

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

Funding of basic science is important for society as a whole, but is not in the interest of any individual investor. Those who make fundamental discoveries generally do not reap the benefits –the laws of nature cannot be protected and the applications are too long-term and unpredictable– and the cultural and educational benefits do not generate direct profits.

Newton's heirs (if he had had any) would be rich if it had been possible to patent the calculus and they received a royalty whenever it was used, but one cannot patent laws of mathematics.

Few scientists have the foresight of Faraday who, in reply to Gladstone's question "What use is electricity?" replied "One day Sir you may tax it". More typical is the remark of Rutherford, the discoverer of the nucleus, who as late as the mid-1930s stated that "Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of atoms is talking moonshine".

Quantum mechanics led to modern electronics and lasers, but even with the benefit of hind-sight, investment in the research which led to quantum mechanics would not have been a good commercial investment; the underlying knowledge could not have been protected, the time-lag was too long and the results too unpredictable.

So investment in basic science is not of interest for any individual enterprise, but it is nevertheless very important for society as a whole, i.e. basic science is what economists call a "public good". Public goods are items such as lighthouses and defence, which are expensive to produce, but once produced are essentially automatically available to all even if they are unwilling to pay. Such items are generally only likely to be supported collectively by governments.

Governments should therefore support basic science, on the basis of the benefits of the directly acquired knowledge, the spin-offs and the training, as well as cultural grounds. Whenever profit is easily foreseeable, industry will invest and governments can generally stay away, although they can play some role e.g. by encouraging contacts and collaboration between industry and universities. Much of applied research is therefore the responsibility of industry. However, the situation is not entirely clear cut, since whether applied research will lead to direct profits is not always predictable, e.g. research on heart disease could lead to patentable drugs, or to the need for a better diet and more exercise. Furthermore, public funding of applied research on topics such as the environment or issues affecting transport policy is obviously necessary.

This analysis leads to the questions

• If funding of basic science is not in the interest of any individual, is it in the interest of any individual country?
• How to choose what to fund, and at what level?

There are several answers to the first question. First, I consider that developed countries have a responsibility to fund basic science in the interest of society as a whole. Second, an active basic research base sustains and fosters technological development. The role of research in training scientists who go on to work in industry, and in creating networks, is extremely important. Geographical proximity to research centres gives some advantage in exploiting their output, and spin-offs and spin-off companies are most likely to occur locally. It is no accident that Silicon Valley is close to Stanford University or that there is a huge cluster of high-tech companies close to Boston (unfortunately it is not so easy to find such examples in Europe due to the weaker entrepreneurial culture in European universities and research centres).

Nevertheless, we can ask what about Japan?