What’s Special about Basic Research?

Abstract

“Basic research” is often used in science policy. It is commonly thought to refer to research that is directed solely toward acquiring new knowledge rather than any more practical objective. Recently, there has been considerable concern about the future of basic research because of purported changes in the nature of knowledge production and increasing pressures on scientists to demonstrate the social and economic benefits of their work. But is there really something special about basic research? The author argues here that “basic research” is a flexible and ambiguous concept that is drawn on by scientists to acquire prestige and resources. She shows that it is used for boundary work and gives examples of the work it does in different situations by drawing on interviews with scientists and policy makers on the category of basic research and the changes they have seen in it over time.

Systems biology, big science and grand challenges

“…This means there is an important place for systems biology in the grand challenge framework. Despite their problem-orientation, the ambition and the long time-scale of grand challenges have similarities with 'basic research', according to some definitions of this term (Calvert 2006).…”

The Mundane Politics of ‘Security Research’

“…Third, in contrast to Calvert's (2006) assessment, tailoring was neither a single event during the research process, nor mere 'window dressing' which just portrayed their work as security research in order to obtain funding. Rather, it was a continuous negotiation to align their commitments to both their fi elds of research and the government program, and in some cases it required a tremendous amount of work.…”

“…Accounts of how scientists construct and go about their scientifi c problems under increasing pressures to make their work relevant for social or commercial purposes are also sometimes diffi cult to reconcile. For example, while Cooper (2009: 648) argues that "commercially engaged scientists […] are more likely to express the importance of market-oriented solutions," Calvert's (2006) work suggests that scientists might only do so strategically to secure funding, while they continue with their previous lines of work regardless of their funders' demands. On the other hand, Parker and Crona's (2012) study suggests that scientists choose their problems and approaches according to who the most powerful stakeholder is at a given time, perhaps slightly understating scientists' agency and perspectives.…”

Just how difficult can it be counting up R&D funding for emerging technologies (and is tech mining with proxy measures going to be any better)?

“…Furthermore politically popular options will attract re-framing of activities. For example, Calvert (2006) observes how R&D projects can shift between definitions of 'basic' or 'applied' research or from one subject to another according to research funding policy.…”