The purpose of science is to create knowledge or understanding of
the physical world that we live in. "Scientia" means
knowledge. Curiosity is the driving force. Knowing is enough for
science, but applied science goes a step further to apply that
knowledge
to solve real-world problems.
For most of the history of mankind, scientists were amateurs [sometimes called hobby scientists] who were curious about some phenomena, observed with care, took notes, and shared their findings. The main resources required were time, effort, a keen eye, and the ability to take careful notes. For applied science, engineering, or technology, the amateur was someone who loved to tinker and had some notion of how to make an existing product or process better. "Until the early 20th century amateur scientists-- meaning people who didn't have formal training in science, or make a living doing scientific research-- were able to make significant contributions to most disciplines, and one of the great narrative threads in the history of science in the 19th century is the emergence of a significant status distinction between amateur and professional scientists. Professionals had access to instruments that were increasingly sophisticated and specialized, and too costly for amateurs; they had resources for analysis and publishing that amateurs didn't; and they had the training and skills that amateurs could no longer cultivate."
While amateur scientists and inventors exist and there are social networks for some engaged in field science such as birders or those who breed new species of plants, most pure and applied research is done by corporations governmental or commercial. This means that the results [work for hire] belong to the organization rather than to the individual who does the research. This creates a variety of problems with public access to knowledge. The cost of the space and equipment needed for research and development makes it difficult for amateurs to do pure science.
Some critics suggest that the amateur scientist is more likely to
be innovative because professional scientists and government funding
agencies "play it safe" and prefer conventional, established science to
new and different approaches.
Can an amateur scientist be a "real" scientist? Role for the amateur scientist in the 21st Century?
While the literature, including most reference works, suggest that there is a clear distinction between pure and applied science and that pure science often leads to applied science breakthroughs later, there is some disagreement about the role of each. As Harry Mulder asks, "if necessity is the mother of invention, is it also the father of science?" He, and others, suggest that solving real world problems does lead to breakthroughs in our knowledge of some aspect of the natural world, i.e. basic science. Thus, a key question that is especially important for those funding scientific research is the degree to which benefits are the result of applied rather than basic work. If applied science yields substantial new "basic" knowledge, then those who lament the decline in pure research as eventually the end of meaningful applied science are wrong.
Much of the noise about this relationship is related to funding, especially by government agencies and research extensive universities where most pure research is done.
What difference might it make if there is a reduction of funding for pure or basic research?
Natural science is sometimes used instead of "pure" or "hard" science. Natural science is "the rational study of the universe via rules or laws of natural order. A related definition is that natural science "deals with the objects and phenomena in the physical world." The goal of natural science is to explain the complexities of nature and to be able to make predictions on the basis of that knowledge. The term natural science is also used to differentiate those fields using scientific method in the study of nature...." Confusingly, natural science is also used for the study of the natural world in order to create sustainable development which seems to be mostly applied.
There is some agreement that there is no clear, clean dividing line between pure science and applied science. In some cases, applied science leads to pure science research and vice versa. Still, the standard definitions focus on curiosity as the key ingredient in pure science while demand for an answer to solve a problem of some sort is the key ingredient in applied science.
It is curious, although understandable, that pure scientists argue
that science need not be useful, "but that all knowledge will
ultimately prove useful." Without some reasonable claim to utility,
pure science is not likely to be funded.
When you hear "natural world," what do you think of?
Hard science is often used as a synonym for pure science. “Hard refers to the rigor of the research methodology." "Falsifiability" or the ability to test a proposition to see if it is true or false is the cornerstone of hard science. This means that any scientific result could, at some time in the future, be tested and found to be false. Thus, all scientific findings are tentative. When tested and supported, findings allow predictions to be made and useful models of reality may be created.
This does not mean that ”soft“ research is sloppy or grossly
subjective. Still, the contrast between ”hard“ and ”soft“ seems to
demean those disciplines not considered to be ”hard.“ Physics,
chemistry, and some aspects of biology are usually used as examples of
”hard science.“
Hard science is often associated with rigor. Rigor includes
patience and attention to detail. What other attributes are associated
with rigor?
Basic science is another way of looking at pure science. Basic refers to the focus on relatively broad or fundamental principles. Basic research enlarges foundational public knowledge and is available to all. Ultimately, basic research often leads to applied research that results in new ways of doing things rather than improvements in older methods. For example, basic research discovered the principle of latent heat [liquids take in energy when the evaporate]. Refrigeration technology eventually resulted. Unhappily, the economic benefits of basic research are based on hope or faith and are difficult to assess. The distant or unlikely payoff discourages most commercial firms from doing basic research. Too, lack of immediate benefit allows ordinary people and those in Congress to throw rocks at basic research as a "waste of money."
Basic research is sometimes called Newtonian research since the focus is on simply knowing the natural world and how it works. An opposite approach might be Francis Bacon with his focus on practical benefits and solving real-world problems.
One of the fundamental concerns for 21st Century science is who will
do the basic research. Traditionally, basic research was done by
academics, but increasingly academic researchers are engaged in funded
research that is applied and related to a problem that is important to
the funding agency. Similarly, the great corporate labs such as the
Bell Labs [old AT&T] are reduced and very much applied. Ideally,
the government would fund basic research but that is less and less
likely.
If you were a scientist, how would you argue that basic science
needs funding and support. As a faculty member, how would you argue
that faculty should be encouraged to conduct research even if it means
less teaching. Does research inform teaching?
Big science may be pure or applied, although there is a notable recent trend away from pure research, especially in high energy physics. Big science resulted from World War II, particularly the need to create new technologies to counter enemy threats. Examples of notable research achievements include the Manhattan Project and the development of nuclear weapons. The immediate need to win the war created a situation in which large budgets, large staffs, large laboratories, and very expensive state of the art equipment were made available. The National Laboratories, such as the one at Oak Ridge, grew quickly and had a major impact on the way that scientific research was conducted and what sort of research was done. In fact, Alvin Weinberg, at ORNL was the first to write about "big science."
Big research is typically "top-down" centralized research since
the research agenda is created as a result of government policy and
decisions rather a decision by the scientist. Because of the size of
this type of research, it required a substantial management structure
so big science is often bureaucratic with an emphasis on forms and
proper procedures. The increased emphasis on fund-raising and project
management created a new career path for scientists and engineers. In
universities, it stimulated a trend to value research [externally
funded] over instruction. Research publications were now authored by multiple co-authors instead of a single author or two.
What are the assets and liabilities of big science?
Here is a relatively exhaustive list of the natural sciences from Wikipedia:
Fields of science are widely-recognized categories of specialized expertise within science, and typically embody their own terminology and nomenclature.
The sciences consist of the physical sciences, the earth sciences and the life sciences. The physical sciences include:
Each natural science discipline may be divided into sub-disciplines of subfields. These change over time, especially as content is imported from other disciplines or fields. Examples, not comprehensive, follow.
Physics
Chemistry
Earth sciences
Biology
In commercial firms, "research" often means development [developing a new product or process based upon existing knowledge/experience] within an existing technology or within known understandings of how things work in the natural environment. In academe, such research is often called "development" as practiced in a research and development center. The linear model of research advocated in many academic settings begins with pure research which leads to applied research which leads to development which leads to better products and processes. Thus, basic research concludes with a payoff that benefits all.
In fact, historical evidence clearly indicates that basic understanding of the natural world has also resulted from applied scientists and engineers solving important problems. As George Porter said, "thermodynamics owes more to the the steam engine than the steam engine owes to science." It seems safe to say that the relationship between science and technology is somewhat complex and certainly not linear in all or even most situations.
There is some controversy about the degree to which applied science is engineering is technology. Again, this is related to funding issues which inevitably involve lobbying, politics, and various interest groups.
While scientists are especially interested in "why" something happens [explanation], engineers are interesting in building machines or processes that result in a product [products] of value. Note that scientists may be substantially involved in engineering as they create instruments to collect and measure data.
Applied science is intended to provide concrete solutions for immediate, real world problems. While there is innovation and novelty, it is typically based upon existing knowledge rather than an entirely new discovery. Engineers apply scientific, technological and mathematical knowledge to problem solving. This knowledge is usually combined with hands on experience. Engineers design and produce useful products and processes. In order to do that they must "identify, understand, and interpret" design constraints. Since there are normally several potential solutions, they must select the one that is the best for a particular audience, particular use, and particular cost.
Technology may be seen as an experience-based profession building upon a body of knowledge gained from previous experiences that worked or did not. Little scientific knowledge is needed although decisions are based upon observation and measurement. Technology may also be seen as science-based building upon a body of knowledge gained from pure and applied science research.
Layton suggests that science serves two important roles for technology:
Both applied science and technology are often seen as engineering or the disciplines normally found in a college of engineering. In contrast, chemistry and physics are found found in the college of arts and sciences.
"Engineering is the design, analysis, and/or construction of works for practical purposes." Those who practice engineering are engineers rather than scientists. Engineers typically use content from the sciences, mathematics, technologies as well as from their own discipline. Engineering focuses on design. In particular, engineers must design a work [an engine in the 14th CE] that meets particular requirements whether they be cost, utility, attractiveness, durability or others. Above all, engineers are real world, right now, problem solvers. Works or products normally receive rigorous testing to insure that they will work well in real world situations. Failure to do so can have dramatic consequences.
Just as there is big science, there is also big engineering. Large projects require large teams, large amounts of funding, expensive and specialized equipment and the like. Again, such works are usually funded by government agencies. At the same time, there is more room in engineering for the basement or hobby engineer who can create a better widget based on experience, patience, and a hunch. With a patent, a good product, a business plan, and good legal support, that "inventor" can be richly rewarded. No work for hire.
There are five major types of engineering:
To what degree do these sub-disciplines seem to be different or
similar to each other?
Since basic science often yields knowledge that is not applied, both government and commercial firms have created research and development [R & D] centers designed to take the results of basic and applied science and develop products and processes from them. Sometimes this is called the commercialization [the economic exploitation of inventions] of research. A related phrase is knowledge transfer [the transfer of research findings to commerce and industry] so that new products and processes may be developed for the benefit of society. Many in government, here and abroad, believe that the capacity to develop and utilize new knowledge is the key to survival in the future.
Intellectual property, patents in particular, is used to reward the basic research institution and provide capital for research if that research if internally funded. The researcher's work may well be judged on the degree to which successful commercialization results from the research. This may well blur the distinction between basic and applied research.
Research and
development refers to "future-oriented, longer-term research and
development activities to develop successful products or
processes that will yield a competitive advantage." Technological
innovation is a challenge because products/processes may not be
successful technically or economically. Many R & D efforts are not
successful so this is a risky activity.
Research and development may include three types of effort. Basic
research answers fundamental questions about the natural world. Applied
research solves particular real world problems. Development
is "the systematic utilization of the knowledge gained from research to
create useful products and processes." Engineering may be required to
design the final marketable product and how it will be manufactured.
Besides its association with science, R & D is also associated with
economic development. For example, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
provides such services for Tennessee business.
Given the sense that the country or the firm with the best R & D
will play a dominant role in the future, these centers have received
increasing emphasis in universities, government agencies, and
for-profit firms. Recent travails in the pharmaceutical industry
clearly indicate that well funded R & D may not yield noteworthy
results, even with substantial trials. The U.S. leads the world in R
& D expenditures. The national laboratories in the U.S. are
research and development centers. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a
good example. OSTI provides project
summaries for six major U.S. government department R & D
centers. The Center For Advanced
Aviation System Development is a good example of an R & D
center in a federal government department.
Provide an example of how R & D might work in an area of personal interest.
