In the 20th century, the interaction between science and technology and society underwent profound changes. In this context, scientific research is divided into categories such as basic research and applied research, so as to distinguish the different objectives of scientific research services. However, the concept of basic and applied research and the relationship between the two has been an important issue debated by scholars in the history of science and technology and science and technology policy at home and abroad for many years.
Conceptual analysis of basic and applied research
In 1945, Vannevar Bush put forward his views on basic science and its role in technological innovation in his report Science – The Endless Frontier. Bush believes that the implementation of basic research does not consider actual results, but is an understanding of general knowledge and the natural world and its laws. He pointed out that applied research always excludes pure research, and the inherent contradiction between the basic and applied research goals divides the actual boundary between the two kinds of exploration. Regarding the dynamic relationship between basic and applied research, he proposed a "linear model" of a single dimension – basic research is a precursor to technological progress. According to Bush, investment in basic science can transform scientific achievements into technological innovation through the process of technological transformation, and it can be rewarded in terms of economic welfare. After Bush's "linear model" was proposed, it soon became the basis of the US national science policy. In 1963, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revised the classification of studies in the Frascati Handbook (No. 1), with "basic research" defined as "work carried out primarily for the purpose of increasing scientific knowledge, without regard to practical special applications", and "applied research" as work carried out "taking into account practical applications".
However, the idea that basic and applied research are separated from each other quickly became controversial in the academic community, which led to a long-standing debate in the academic community about the relationship between basic and applied research in the 20th century. In 1950, James M. B. James Bryant Conant questioned the concepts and taxonomy of basic and applied research. He pointed out that no one can draw a clear line between basic and applied research. He proposed abandoning the terms "basic research" and "applied research" and replacing them with "planned research" and "free research." For "there is a fairly noticeable difference between a research program aimed at a particular goal and a free exploration of a vast field unknown to mankind." We can safely and boldly say that the so-called applied research is all planned, but those labeled basic are also often planned." In 1964, Alan Tower Waterman introduced the concept of "task-oriented" basic research. He noted that the purpose of such research was to help solve some practical problems. This kind of research is different from applied research, where researchers are not asked or expected to find important practical applications and can still explore the unknown according to any path he chooses, but this kind of "directed" basic research is different from "free" basic research.
The idea that basic research includes directional research quickly reached a consensus in the academic community. At the same time, scholars have also raised arguments about the nature of applied research. They noted that applied research should also include those seeking more basic understanding. In 1967, Harvey Brooks, through an in-depth investigation of basic and applied research, noted that the views of scientists and funders may differ. Scientists may think a study is fundamental, but funders may confirm that the study is applicable. In addition, differences in study sites can lead to different perceptions of the study. He noted that "basic" and "applied" are not antonyms. Work that directly points directly to the purpose of the application may be extremely basic in nature; and the fact that a study can be used to "apply" the characteristic does not mean that it is not fundamental. According to the new developments in the academic community's understanding of basic research and applied research, the Frascati Handbook was revised in 1970 to define "basic research" as "the basic exploration for the acquisition of new scientific and technological knowledge and understanding... The initial goal does not point to the actual purpose of a certain aspect". Not only that, but the manual also explains basic research: while basic research "does not consider practical applications," it may "evolve in a direction of interest to funding agencies." At this point, the academic community's understanding of the concept of basic and applied research has advanced to a new level.
Breakthrough in the "Linear Model of Innovation"
In the 1940s and 1970s, the academic community's understanding of the concepts of basic and applied research continued to deepen, but the understanding of the dynamic relationship between the two still needs to be promoted. In fact, the "linear model" proposed by Bush in the 1940s has been the mainstream narrative method for many years, and expressions such as "basic research is the pioneer of technological progress" and "basic research is the future applied research" have been repeated. In the fifties and sixties, the "linear model of innovation" was introduced and disseminated by economists, and this model was established on the understanding that basic research was followed by applied research, which was developed and eventually became innovation. It was not until the 1980s that the "linear model" began to be more and more challenged.
In 1987, Paul Forman made the controversial point that physics, backed by applied technology funding, was purely "nominal" research, not a "new understanding," but a "new" in a "limited sense." Forman's views have once again sparked a debate between basic and applied research in academia. In 1990, Daniel Kevles disagreed with Forman's view, arguing that some disciplines in physics seemed to be driven by intrinsic logic to promote a deeper understanding of the physical universe, but that other disciplines might initially be given meaning from the discipline's relevance to technology, which could have their own life as fields of study. Taking "fluid mechanics" as an example, he notes that "whatever the source of interest, it seems arbitrary to say that one type of research is true fundamental physics and the other is not". In this controversy, the basic research controversy triggered by applied research has attracted the attention of historians of science and technology, which means that the "linear pattern" of the single dimension has been broken. In 1991, Nathan Rosenberg explicitly stated that "the linear model of innovation is dead."
In 1999, D. E. Stokes' Basic Science and Technological Innovation: Pasteur Quadrant was published. Stokes introduced a "two-dimensional" "quadrant model of scientific research", using "whether there is an application consideration" and "whether to pursue basic understanding" as the coordinate axes, forming four "quadrants" of scientific research. They are guided only by cognitive needs and not guided by practical applications, called the "Bohr Quadrant"; research caused only by the purpose of application, not seeking a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon in a scientific field, called the "Edison Quadrant"; basic research that seeks to expand the boundaries of knowledge and is influenced by the purpose of application, called the "Pasteur Quadrant"; research that is neither the purpose of cognition nor the study of the purpose of application, and is not named (the quadrant is not empty). Among them, the "Pasteur Quadrant" is the focus of Stokes's attention, and its name comes from the microbiologist Pasteur. Pasteur invests in both basic and applied research in his scientific research and combines these two goals. The proposal of the "Pasteur Quadrant" truly breaks through the "linear mode" and is of great significance for understanding the dynamic relationship between basic and applied research. By the end of the 1990s, academia had formed a consensus that a "linear model of innovation" was impossible to fully grasp the complexity of the innovation process.
Pushing the boundaries between basic and applied research
As early as 1987, Paul Forman proposed that there was no measurable distinction between basic and applied research, that it would be wrong to treat "fundamental" and "applied" as unchanging types, and that historians should seek the "integrity" of knowledge. In 1993, Gerald Holton pointed out that we needed a study that could combine Newton's tradition of understanding the natural world with Bacon's tradition of applying that knowledge to human goals. This kind of research should include "research that has been ignored by basic science and is at the core of some social problem", suggesting that we break through the so-called demarcation between foundation and application, and focus on the core problems facing human society with a broader vision. In 2012, Roger Pielke asked whether a new consensus could replace "basic research" as a core, organized symbol.
In 2018, Basic and Applied Research: The Language of Science Policy in the Twentieth Century, edited by David Kaldewey and Désirée Schauz, was published. The book compiles the studies of national cases in the 20th century by scholars of different countries and different languages under the proposition of "basic and applied research". Through cross-cultural comparative research, we see that the concepts of basic research and applied research are not unified in different social, cultural and linguistic contexts, which makes us rethink the categories of scientific research. In the book's final chapter, Tim Flink and David Caldway present "What follows basic and applied research?" "It is an attempt to reflect on the development and transformation of the language of science policy in recent years through the analysis of the conceptual history of the 20th century, seeking a new globally unified terminology for science policy in the 21st century." They noted that the European Research Council has reshaped "basic research" into "cutting-edge science" and that "grand challenges" have replaced the old concept of "applied research." What we need most now are multidisciplinary research projects that address worldwide issues such as health, well-being and safety.
(Author Affilications:Institute of Contemporary China, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)
Source: China Social Science Network - China Social Science Daily Author: Su Xi