I've been struggling with the idea that in order to justify a career in the sciences, I need to do something that helps the broader community. This generally means doing something applied like work in invasive species, but can also apply to empirical work that promotes conservation of areas in order to study rare species or phenomena. That being said though, why do we have to do something for the world? Why can't we write our check to the Union of Concerned Scientists and call it good?
I think the time has come to admit that not all science has to be directly applicable and that not all discoveries have to mean something life changing for the human race. New species, new understandings of processes in biology, chemistry, and physics stretch the boundaries of human understanding of the world and universe in which we live. Unfortunately many projects, even though they are scientifically interesting, because they don't have implications for human health, environmental health, or species conservation, don't get funded. I only point this out because if there is bias anywhere in the sciences, it is in what gets funded and therefore what gets published and disseminated and reproduced.
Just food for thought.
1 comment:
I agree with you fully.
There is much truth in a quote usually attributed to Isaac Asimov, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
...combine this with the knowledge that many (most?) of the great scientific advances throughout history have come from the curious tinkerers...
Basic science research produces a groundwork upon which future, often unanticipated, advances occur. In our rush to fund "translational" or "directly applicable" research, accelerated by an impatient populace and political expedience, I do worry that we have undervalued the creation of tomorrow's foundations by clamoring for the ornamental embellishments of today's edifices.
Post a Comment