I'm in it for the Groupies

Neil deGrasse Tyson on the “science should be used to improve life” argument

As of writing this I have watched only the second half, which is linked in the link, to see the part about how the desire to improve life isn’t what drives basic science, it’s a byproduct. Scientists generally aren’t looking that far ahead, even if they could. You’re driven by curiosity which is aimed at the problem in front of you. Others can (and do) take discoveries and apply them.

I liked the “utility belt of understanding” metaphor, and since it’s Neil deGrasse Tyson, there’s a lot of good stuff (except for the part where he’s confusing Millikan with Michelson)

2 thoughts on “I'm in it for the Groupies

  1. It is interesting that here in the UK, EPSRC which funds most mathematics and physics requires statements about the impact of your work (or proposed work) on wider society and the economy.

    Finding academic beneficiaries is also required, and frankly a lot easier!

    I cannot see any technological spin-offs or direct financial gain to the UK from my research in mathematical science. For sure, not in the short term.

    Science is, and should be driven by the desire to understand our world.

  2. Of course science should be used to improve life. That is precisely the reason that the various engineering disciplines exist.

Comments are closed.