The use of basic science: Concluding remarks

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

I have argued that:

• Basic science is very important, culturally and economically.
• Basic science should be supported by governments, as their first priority relative to funding of applied research, and developed countries should not leave it to others.
• Attempts to "direct" research in basic science on the basis of economic objectives are generally futile, and could be counter productive.

From 1945 to the 1980s the attitude to funding basic science was generally favourable in most industrial nations (Parts of the following three paragraphs are almost direct quotations from ref. 4). In this period, there was wide acceptance of the arguments put forward in a celebrated report published in 1945 by a group led by Vannevar Bush, the US presidential Science Adviser, entitled "Science - The Endless Frontier". This report argued that money spent on basic research would, sooner or later, contribute to wealth, health and national security, and that one should not worry too much about exactly what form these benefits might take, and when they might occur. This view prevailed through the 1960s and public funding for basic research grew appreciably in real terms year by year. It must however be admitted, I believe, that in the US at least in the 1950s, there was a tacit understanding that if governments kept university scientists happy by funding their research, those scientists would be available to help in the case of war, as had happened during the Second World War (the Reagan administration tried unsuccessfully to cash this tacit cheque when seeking support for the star wars initiative).

However, the increase of science funding came to an end as public expenditure came under strain and there were greater demands for public accountability. The UK was one of the first to experience such pressures in the second half of the 1970s. The Netherlands was another early case, although there the reasons were that it was felt that there should be more emphasis on science producing social benefits. The model endured longest in Germany and the United States, only breaking down around 1990. In the German case, this was because of the unexpectedly high cost of unification. In the US, it was due to the growth of the deficit in the federal budget together with a belief that Japanese experience showed that the underlying philosophy was flawed.

Now, in virtually all OECD countries, a new social contract for science seems to be emerging. This is exemplified by the UK's white paper, referred to above, and the foresight exercises, which imply that governments will invest in basic research only if it can be shown that it is likely to generate rather direct and specific benefits in the form of wealth creation and improvements of the quality of life.

I have argued that this is a bad policy. The demand that basic science should only be funded if the generation of specific benefits can be anticipated is misguided, and may actually be economically counterproductive. However, the tide shows no sign of turning, as indicated by the following quotation from an article published in Research Europe on 5th June of this year:

"When the heads of Germany's biggest research organizations took the unprecedented step in January of writing an open letter to the Federal Research Minister virtually calling upon him to do a U-turn, it was not clear what the impact would be. Would Jürgen Rüttgers press ahead with plans to restrict funding for basic research and channel more money into research targeted on economic priorities, or would he heed the call of Germany's research community and back off? Now the outcome is clear. Rüttgers has not changed course one bit to please the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and its scientific allies".

We must not give up the defence of basic science, however. In the wise words of 'Science - The Endless Frontier': "Under pressure for immediate results, and unless deliberate policies are set up to guard against it, applied science invariably drives out pure." If, as I do, you believe passionately in the value of pure science, be on guard.