Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: "Directed" vs "Basic" research



The basic/applied research philosophy I'm about to describe happened over 20
years ago, so I certainly cannot claim any knowledge of current philosophy.
However, what I observed 20 years ago struck me as a good approach.

I was at Los Alamos National Laboratory doing research in nuclear detector
design. It was partly applied or directed research because we did have an
ultimate goal of making better or new kinds of detectors. But it was also
basic research because we doing some pretty fundamental materials-science
measurements and some pretty fundamental electronic circuitry exploration
without any solid evidence that anything we were doing would ultimately
become useful.

There was an attitude about this project that permeated all levels of
management from the lab director to the division director to the group
leader. This attitude was that it was the role of national labs to work on
this edge between basic and applied research. Using tax dollars we could
take "risks" that private-sector R&D teams might not be able to take. It
was perceived as okay and appropriate to have some undirected research
"irons in the fire" as well as applied research "irons in the fire."

I also participated in some conferences specifically convened to bring
industrial R&D people together with LANL R&D people. At these conferences
we showed the industrial R&D people some of the basic research things we
were doing and asked them if they saw any spin-offs that might come from
this. If they did, that would not specifically mean projects with no
perceived spin-offs would be axed, but it might mean a collaboration could
develop for those items where a spin-off might be possible. Or it could
mean we might try to hire another person to work on the idea with spin-off
potential while others continued to work on a wide range of basic research
ideas.

We also asked the industry R&D people what ideas they had for research
projects that they could not pursue because of lack of time and/or money.
It stands to reason that many competent scientists doing industrial R&D will
get ideas they cannot pursue because they are too far toward the basic end
(or too far away from the practical end) for the company to include in any
long-range funding. Or, maybe the company thinks it is worthwhile
research, but the price tag is beyond what the company can afford, so
perhaps a tax-supported lab can attempt the project.

As I said earlier, this strikes me as appropriate. Rather than polarization
of scientists into basic versus applied research areas, this philosophy
acknowledged both were important. This approach recognized that both types
of research were appropriate in both the private sector and the tax-funded
sector, and if we keep communicating we might be able to make good decisions
concerning who is best suited to pursue which things. It sure seems to me
we need to keep this type of collaborative spirit alive.

Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
Bluffton College
280 West College Avenue
Bluffton, OH 45817