In addition to innovations, basic research also serves to provide insight into nature around us and allows us to respect its innate value. The development of this respect is what drives conservation efforts. Through learning about the environment, conservation efforts can be strengthened using research as a basis. Technological innovations can unintentionally be created through this as well, as seen with examples such as kingfishers' beaks affecting the design for high speed bullet train in Japan.
Despite smart people working on this problem for 50 years, we're still discovering surprisingly basic things about the earliest history of our world. It's quite humbling. — Matija Ćuk, scientist at the SETI Institute and lead researcher, November 2016
Basic research advances fundamental knowledge about the world. It focuses on creating and refuting or supportingtheories that explain observed phenomena. Pure research is the source of most new scientific ideas and ways of thinking about the world. It can be exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory; however, explanatory research is the most common.
Basic research generates new ideas, principles, and theories, which may not be immediately utilized but nonetheless form the basis of progress and development in different fields. Today's computers, for example, could not exist without research in pure mathematics conducted over a century ago, for which there was no known practical application at the time. Basic research rarely helps practitioners directly with their everyday concerns; nevertheless, it stimulates new ways of thinking that have the potential to revolutionize and dramatically improve how practitioners deal with a problem in the future.
In the United States, basic research is funded mainly by federal government and done mainly at universities and institutes. As government funding has diminished in the 2010s, however, private funding is increasingly important.
Basic versus applied scienceEdit
Applied science focuses on the development of technology and techniques. In contrast, basic science develops scientific knowledge and predictions, principally in natural sciences but also in other empirical sciences, which are used as the scientific foundation for applied science. Basic science develops and establishes information to predict phenomena and perhaps to understand nature, whereas applied science uses portions of basic science to develop interventions via technology or technique to alter events or outcomes. Applied and basic sciences can interface closely in research and development. The interface between basic research and applied research has been studied by the National Science Foundation.
A worker in basic scientific research is motivated by a driving curiosity about the unknown. When his explorations yield new knowledge, he experiences the satisfaction of those who first attain the summit of a mountain or the upper reaches of a river flowing through unmapped territory. Discovery of truth and understanding of nature are his objectives. His professional standing among his fellows depends upon the originality and soundness of his work. Creativeness in science is of a cloth with that of the poet or painter.
It conducted a study in which it traced the relationship between basic scientific research efforts and the development of major innovations, such as oral contraceptives and videotape recorders. This study found that basic research played a key role in the development in all of the innovations. The number of basic science research[clarification needed] that assisted in the production of a given innovation peaked between 20 and 30 years before the innovation itself. While most innovation takes the form of applied science and most innovation occurs in the private sector, basic research is a necessary precursor to almost all applied science and associated instances of innovation. Roughly 76% of basic research is conducted by universities.
^ abcJames McCormick (2001). "Scientific medicine—fact of fiction? The contribution of science to medicine". Occasional Paper (Royal College of General Practitioners) (80): 3–6. PMC2560978. PMID19790950.
^Ruth-Marie E Fincher, Paul M Wallach & W Scott Richardson, "Basic science right, not basic science lite: Medical education at a crossroad", Journal of General Internal Medicine, Nov 2009;24(11):1255–58, abstract: "Thoughtful changes in education provide the opportunity to improve understanding of fundamental sciences, the process of scientific inquiry, and translation of that knowledge to clinical practice".
^Stephan, Paula (2012). How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-674-04971-0.
^ abRichard Smith (Mar 2006). "The trouble with medical journals". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99 (3): 115–9. doi:10.1177/014107680609900311. PMC1383755. PMID16508048.
^Leon Eisenberg (Mar 1988). "Science in medicine: Too much or too little and too limited in scope?". American Journal of Medicine. 84 (3 Pt 1): 483–91. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(88)90270-7. PMID3348249.
^J N Clarke; S Arnold; M Everest & K Whitfield (Jan 2007). "The paradoxical reliance on allopathic medicine and positivist science among skeptical audiences". Social Science & Medicine. 64 (1): 164–73. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.038. PMID17045377.
^Eric Holtzman (1981). "Science, philosophy, and society: Some recent books". International Journal of Health Services. 11 (1): 123–49. doi:10.2190/l5eu-e7pc-hxg6-euml. PMID7016767. S2CID 25401644.
^P M Strong PM & K McPherson (1982). "Natural science and medicine: Social science and medicine: Some methodological controversies". Social Science & Medicine. 16 (6): 643–57. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(82)90454-3. PMID7089600.
^Lucien R Karhausen (2000). "Causation: The elusive grail of epidemiology". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 3 (1): 59–67. doi:10.1023/A:1009970730507. PMID11080970. S2CID 24260908.
^K Bayertz & P Nevers (1998). "Biology as technology". Clio Medica. 48: 108–32. PMID9646019.
^ abJohn V Pickstone & Michael Worboys (Mar 2011). "Focus: Between and beyond 'histories of science' and 'histories of medicine'—introduction". Isis. 102 (1): 97–101. doi:10.1086/658658. PMID21667777. S2CID 224835675.
Lester S King (May 1983). "Medicine in the USA: Historical vignettes: XI: Medicine seeks to be 'scientific'". JAMA. 249 (18): 2475–9. doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03330420025028. PMID6341631.
^Thomas Marshall (Apr 1997). "Scientific knowledge in medicine: A new clinical epistemology?". Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 3 (2): 133–8. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00075.x. PMID9276588.
^A Zalewski (Mar 1999). "Importance of philosophy of science to the history of medical thinking". Croatian Medical Journal. 40 (1): 8–13. PMID9933889.
^Kevork Hopayian (May 2004). "Why medicine still needs a scientific foundation: Restating the hypotheticodeductive model—part two". British Journal of General Practice. 54 (502): 402–3. PMC1266186. PMID15372724.
^A Skurvydas (2005). "New methodology in biomedical science: Methodological errors in classical science". Medicina. 41 (1): 7–16. PMID15687745.
^Ronald A Arky (2007). "Abe Flexner, where are you? We need you!". Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association. 118: 89–96. PMC1863593. PMID18528492.
^Peter Byass (2011). "The democratic fallacy in matters of clinical opinion: Implications for analysing cause-of-death data". Emerging Themes in Epidemiology. 8 (1): 1. doi:10.1186/1742-7622-8-1. PMC3026021. PMID21223568.
^M Brandon Westover; Kenneth D Westover KD & Matt T Bianchi (2011). "Significance testing as perverse probabilistic reasoning". BMC Medicine. 9: 20. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-20. PMC3058025. PMID21356064.
^Alfredo Morabia (2005). "Epidemiological causality". History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 27 (3–4): 365–79. PMID16898206.
^Michael Kundi (July 2006). "Causality and the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence". Environmental Health Perspectives. 114 (7): 969–74. doi:10.1289/ehp.8297. PMC1513293. PMID16835045.
^Andrew C Ward (2009). "The role of causal criteria in causal inferences: Bradford Hill's 'aspects of association'". Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations. 6: 2. doi:10.1186/1742-5573-6-2. PMC2706236. PMID19534788.
^Georg W Kreutzberg (May 2005). "Scientists and the marketplace of opinions: Scientific credibility takes on a different meaning when reaching out to the public". EMBO Reports. 6 (5): 393–6. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400405. PMC1299311. PMID15864285.
^John Worrall (Apr 2010). "Evidence: Philosophy of science meets medicine". Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 16 (2): 356–62. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01400.x. PMID20367864.