An essay on basic research and budgets and making a case for the necessity of funding.

In truth, fundamental research is a necessity, not a luxury. Most of the technological developments made in the past 100 years have been fuelled by fundamental research into science.

It’s mostly about “Big Physics” and there’s a lot that can be discussed about the value of funding “big” vs “small” physics, which (to me) is a separate issue. Pulling funding of basic research is extremely short-sighted. What is getting lost is that applied research depends a lot on basic research having found interesting things about nature, that the applied research then exploits. It’s not exclusive, of course — you can have applied research find something new and exciting. But it’s a question of where you’re looking and what pressures are upon you. If you, as an applied science researcher, see or could see some interesting/unexplained signal in your apparatus, you aren’t likely to investigate it if it negatively impacts the deadline for finishing your project. It’s probably not a priority unless it’s an anomaly that threatens a milestone. You are better off with a person doing basic research, who is free to go and look at whatever they want, and for whom funding can be available if they do quality research.

The other problem is with beancounters that don’t understand the scientific process but unfortunately decide funding. I recall observing a review board when I was a postdoc at an accelerator lab, and there was a government representative on the review board (prioritizing funding and beam time). After the director gave an overall briefing of the lab, and highlighted some of the significant discoveries that had been made over the years, the government rep asked what discoveries were going to be made in the upcoming year. That’s the kind of question that makes my shoulders slump forward and my head hang. As my thesis advisor said on more than one occasion, “if we knew the answer, it wouldn’t be called research.”

via Physics and Physicists