The concept of fundamental science (or "pure") implies experimental research to search for new truths and test hypotheses. Its task is to deeply study theoretical knowledge about the structure of the world. Examples: mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, computer science. Applied science invents and improves devices, methods and processes so that they bring the greatest benefit (for example, become faster, slower, easier, more efficient, cheaper, more durable, etc.). Examples: medicine, selection, archeology, economic informatics.
Science funding
Research is supported by external grants. Currently, large government agencies are increasingly advocating for the provision of bonuses for applied projects. The acquisition of knowledge in itself requires financial investments in the development of basic science, however today it is not considered advisable, since it does not bring practical benefits here and now.
The practical benefits of basic research
The classical work of the great pioneers from Galileo to Linus Pauling was an exceptionally pure science. Now, such studies are considered ridiculous and useless for humanity (for example, what happens if whole chloroplasts isolated from plant cells are introduced into living cells of animals?).
This point of view is very short-sighted because it ignores the fact that progress is part of the continuous experiments of many scientists. Almost all new devices or practical items follow the general development path. The final result in applied science can occur several decades after the initial discovery in the fundamental. Thus, the useless initial discoveries of pure sciences become useful and important, giving rise to subsequent discoveries in applied science and technology.
The basis for all subsequent developments with the help of applied knowledge is open research on the fundamental problems of science. An example is a transistor. When it was first created by John Bardin, it was considered exclusively as a "laboratory exhibit", which had no potential for practical use. No one foresaw its possible revolutionary significance for many electronic devices and computers in the modern world.
How is it determined which research to conduct?
In an ideal world of science and life, professional scientists and doctors of philosophy would decide what to investigate and how to conduct the necessary experiments. In the real world, scientists only work on what is supported by external research funding. This need limits them, because grant applicants always carefully study published announcements about what topics and areas government organizations are currently targeting. Thus, they have a great influence on what research will be conducted. Grant officials can discreetly direct the efforts of scholars in selected areas and ensure that certain topics receive more attention. A similar situation is observed for most industrial researchers, since they should only work on those issues that are relevant to their commercial employer.
Reasons for the uneven development of science
State control over scientific research is a problem, as donors increasingly prefer projects in applied science. This is partly due to a clear desire to make progress in a field of practical interest (for example, energy, fuel, healthcare, the military), and also to show the public who pays taxes that their support for research provides useful new technologies with practical advantages. Funding organizations, unfortunately, do not understand that the division of science into fundamental and applied is rather arbitrary, research in the basic field is almost always the basis for subsequent development by scientists and engineers. A decrease in cash injections into pure science later leads to a decrease in productivity in applied science. Thus, an inherent conflict arises between the financing of basic science and applied science.
The Consequences of the Prevalence of Applied Science Financing
The priority of applied science over the net for obtaining external financial awards inevitably entails negative consequences for progress. Firstly, it reduces the amount of funds created to support basic research. Secondly, this contradicts the well-known fact that almost all important achievements and engineering developments come from the early discoveries of pure science. Thirdly, all studies with a lower priority for financing in basic science and applied science, become less studied. Fourth, the source of most new ideas, new concepts, breakthrough developments and new directions in science is an individual experimenter. Applied research, as a rule, reduces the freedom of creativity, which contributes to the formation of research groups and a decrease in the number of scientists working as individual researchers.
Alternatives to Fundamental Science Financing
Small short-term studies can often be supported by private foundations or crowdfunding (a method of collective financing based on voluntary contributions). Some institutions have programs that offer little financial support for one year of work. These features are especially valuable for scientists who want to experiment. In cases where significant costs of these mechanisms are needed to support, small studies are not enough, you need to get a standard research grant from external organizations.
It is not always well-known, but several organizations offer significant cash prizes on a competitive basis (for example, designing safe aircraft, developing an effective system for the production of feed proteins from algae in special indoor or outdoor farms, and creating a practical and inexpensive electric car). Such projects are closely related to fundamental science and applied science, although they can be related to any materials and areas that the scientist-inventor will use. Competitive prizes are retrospective, that is, they are received after the completion of research and engineering, which is completely opposite to standard state research grants, which give awards for planned potential research work even before it is carried out.
Retrospective research grants can also be found in ongoing support programs in some other countries. They support their research scientists at universities and institutes, regularly awarding them operational cash funds. These funds provide assistance in the necessary expenses, such as the work of graduate students, the purchase of research materials, unforeseen expenses for research (for example, repair of a faulty laboratory instrument), trips to a scientific meeting or to the employee’s laboratory, etc.
Basic research support
Reducing support for basic research requires finding alternative sources of funding. It is not always recognized that conventional research grants allow the use of allocated funds for scientific research if they are related to the main topic of applied science and do not require very large sums of money. Such side projects are often referred to as pilot studies, because they can provide important enough data to subsequently be included in the application for a separate research grant.
The value of fundamental and applied science
Now state support in the form of grants for pure research is declining, while applied research is increasing. However, fundamental knowledge per se will always be important and are the basis for future developments. Fundamental science and applied science are equally valuable to society.
Pure science now needs more encouragement. Scientists should strive to develop and use additional or non-traditional tools that allow them to carry out the necessary basic research in order to develop science and the life of society as a whole. The current adverse effects must be stopped, as this prejudices the prospects for future scientific discoveries.