Talk:Basic research

Removed Redirection
Removed redirection to general 'research' article, as this article did not deal with the concept of 'pure' reseearch vs 'applied' research .. and this deserved some attention on it's own. Bruceanthro 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Preferred term
By Google hits rates, "Basic research" is unequivocally preferred term, as the following table shows: --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Those Google results are misleading, because the phrase "basic research" is most commonly used for a different meaning, that of "core research", as in the most simple/elementary research within a field. "Gas" gets more Google hits than "gasoline", but that doesn't mean the gasoline article should be at gas, because "gas" has multiple definitions (state of matter and petroleum-derived mixture), so we instead use the more specific term "gasoline" for the article on the mixture derived from petroleum. Similarly, "pure research" is a more accurate and specific term for the kind of non-applied research that this article describes. "Pure research" was the original name of this article before it was moved, and it should stay there. —Lowellian (reply) 03:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Applied research uses the scientific method to solve problems and resolve issues of direct relevance to a given societal need or question. Because it is focused on problem solving within society, it is distinct from basic research, which focuses on pursuit of scientific knowledge for the sole purpose of extending scientific understanding and the knowledge base." (Craighead|Nemeroff (Eds.) - The Concise Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science (3rd ed, 2004), p. 76) --62.143.98.13 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What about Blue skies research? Why is there a different article on this? 88.89.110.3 (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think these articles should be merged. Andries (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Experimental research
I edited this out: "Another kind of research is experimental research, which is mainly carried out by industry. Government, university and industry interact and cooperate, and this forms the triple helix model." The classifications of experimental and theoeretical research are a distinct scheme from basic versus applied research. There is basic research which is experimental (e.g. experimental particle physics) and there is applied research which is experimental. Therefore, the quote in question does not make any sense and is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.37.11 (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Definition
Basic Research is involved with the process of creating enough information about a subject matter that will allow an interested person make decisions about activities related to it with some degree of confidence as to the correctness of his decisions.WFPM (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The Google survey shows that most people think that the subject matter should have some kind of practical utility.WFPM (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Basic research is research without a predefined useful target. Basic scientists basically do not know what they are looking for - like explorers. Columbus was not looking for America, but he found it. Einstein developed theories that proved to be helpful for Global Positioning with satellites. Serendipity is not the same: then virtually no efforts is made, and the result entirely depends on brilliant observation. Rbakels (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Theoretical research?
The term theoretical research (as opposed to applied research) is used by academics in the UK but I can't find it on Wiki. Is it another name for pure research? If so, would it be useful to include it within the Pure Research Wiki page. Thanks.Libby norman 10:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman (talk • contribs)

Findings
How about making a category of some of the findings that has come (directly) from basic researh, to illustrate the importance of it, such as Mendeleys genetics studies, Faradays electrics/magnetism (radios etc), Light Emitting Diodes, Röntgens X-rays etc etc (see ref: http://www.lbl.gov/Education/ELSI/research-main.html, under the link "basic history") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.144.166 (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is better located at the articles of the institutes or the persons who performed pure research. Andries (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved
I moved the article title of this page.

"Basic research" is the more common phrase by an order of magnitude.

Google hits
 * "Basic research" - 5,550,000
 * "Fundamental research" - 1,910,000
 * "Pure research" - 308,000

Google Scholar hits
 * "Basic research" - 2,250,000
 * "Fundamental research" - 453,000
 * "Pure research" - 59,100

Google Books hits
 * "Basic research" - 2,510,000
 * "Fundamental research" - 802,000
 * "Pure research" - 187,000

Search domain site:nytimes.com
 * "Basic research" - 28,000
 * "Fundamental research" - 1,630
 * "Pure research" - 838

Search domain site:theguardian.com
 * "Basic research" - 484
 * "Fundamental research" - 90
 * "Pure research" - 84


 * Neutralitytalk 19:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Article is confused, vague, naive, and has erased article "Fundamental science"
Redirecting the article "Fundamental science" to article "Basic research" was severely misguided. The term fundamental science has two major meanings: fundamental physics (versus special science) and basic science (versus applied science). Although fundamental science is a fairly infrequent term for basic science, the merged article now elevates that meaning to primary, and, as a step further, effectively deletes even that. The main meaning of fundamental science occurs in philosophy of science, where the term refers to fundamental physics and is part of a vast discussion on the relation of physics to all other sciences: the special sciences.

The "Basic research" article has now appropriated parts of the "Fundamental science" article, but was written in severe unfamiliarity with the topics. Naively simplistic and somewhat confused, the lead cites sources authoritative over opinions of the general public, but not authoritative over the opinions of philosophers of science. Basic research is the process that yields basic science, but the two terms are not synonyms. Basic research is a process and practice, what basic scientists do, often in laboratories. Basic science, rather, is a body of knowledge, published in journals and textbooks. So basic science is infrequently called "fundamental science", but basic research, rather, which is infrequently called "fundamental research", is not even approximately to be called "fundamental science". — Occurring (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WP has not made any distinction between "basic science" and "basic research," or between "fundamental science" and "fundamental research." This was the case before the merge, and there was no change to the lead of this article during the merge. (Also note that the proper sources for an introduction to the concept of basic research are scientific, not philosophical.) "Basic science" is not necessarily a contrast to "applied science," which the comment above seems to assume.


 * The previous version of the "Fundamental science" article confused the two meanings, with the two seeming to be largely held together by original research, and made assumptions that entire fields of science could be classified as basic or applied, which is incorrect. I have no problem with splitting content back out, using the philosophical meaning only (i.e. the current "Physics" section), with a note linking to the alternative meaning at this article.  Sunrise    (talk)  21:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That the lead was not changed with the merger is quite a defect of the article, since now the lead is supposed to—but does not—summarize also the meaning of fundamental science. Anyway, a scientific source is most authoritative as to the protocols, data, and theories within only that specific branch of science [Lévy-Leblond JM, "About misunderstandings about misunderstandings", Public Understand Sci, 1992 Jan;1(1):17–21].  (Apart from the scientific sources I cited in "Fundamental science", this article "Basic research" uses, as I count, only one scientific source, anyway, but cites many nonscientific sources.)  The topic of this article, however, is the aims and nature of the enterprise termed science.  Believe it or not, that inquiry, philosophical, is the specialized expertise of philosophers of science.  Failure to grasp that apparently explains failure to catch the confusion of an article section titled "Physics" but discussing not physics: it discusses the relation of fundamental physics to other sciences, a relation that physicists do not particularly ponder in their professional work as physicists.  Anyway, the proper concern here is mainstream meanings, not necessary meanings.  In mainstream use, the term basic science might, as you claim, not indicate "necessarily a contrast to", but does indicate, as I clarified, a distinction from applied science.


 * You deny "assumptions that entire fields of science could be classified as basic or applied". Apparently, you have not vetted the reliable, authoritative sources that, when authoring the Wikiarticle "Fundamental science", I cited and that would correct your error.  Unwittingly doing your own original research by assuming, you cite no authoritative sources, but air your personal opinions.  I myself transmit the convention of scientists and scholars [Gonzalez WJ, Philosophico-Methodological Analysis of Prediction and its Role in Economics, New York: Springer, 2015, chs 1.4 "The relations between basic science–applied science and the role of prediction" & 1.4.1 "The distinction basic science–applied science", pp 32–33].  There is social argumentation, at least, against the distinction, which social criticism usually concerns the relations of biological sciences to bioengineering and to biomedical sciences [Wapner J, "The false distinction between basic and applied science", PLOS blog: Work in Progress, 24 Jul 2011].  Still, I await the argument that string theorists are unwittingly helping NASA. For now, the distinction has been well explained [Brooks H, "Applied research definitions, concepts, themes", pp 21–56, §§ 8 "Status of applied science in the United States" & 9 "Judging applied research", pp 51–53, in National Academy of Sciences, Applied Science and Technological Progress: A Report to the Committe on Science and Astronautics, Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1967].  No one said, however, that every instance of "entire fields of science could be classified as basic or applied" only. — Occurring (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It isn't clear to me what statements (in the article) you are trying to support, or what changes you think need to be made. Of course, I don't claim that I make ideal edits, only improvements (or edits intended to be improvements that I will change my mind on if it is warranted). Again, if your concern is about putting the section I titled Physics (in the sense of "use of this term in relation to physics," merely the first possibility that came to mind at the time) back at Fundamental science, I have no problem with that. If you think instead that it should remain here but should have a sentence in the lead, I have no problem with that either. Likewise if you feel a different section title is more appropriate.
 * A few notes on your response:
 * By scientific sources, I mean sources that are published by a scientific society, in a scientific journal, in a scientific textbook, etc. The majority of the references in the article fall into these categories. I have no objection if you wish to draw a distinction elsewhere, as long as we're aware that we're using different terminology!
 * The text contained statements such as "Basic science includes fundamental physics and...astrophysics, biology, chemistry, geology, and perhaps cognitive sciences,...", and another that directly implied that medicine is not science (calling it a "common, populist error"). These seem to make straightforward assumptions that these fields can be exclusively classified in this way. The sources, including the ones you have supplied, do not seem to support this, except perhaps for fields that are typically defined by their applied nature such as engineering. The NAS source seems to contradict it in the first paragraph, by drawing a distinction between "pure and more applied" in every major discipline.
 * FWIW, the article about the aims and nature of science should be Science, not Basic research. :-)
 * -- Sunrise    (talk)  08:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Above, you close, "*FWIW, the article about the aims and nature of science should be Science, not Basic research. :-)". On this talkpage, I had said, "The topic of this article, however, is the aims and nature of the enterprise termed science".  Your stance would be at least slightly tenable if—as I called for—the article "Fundamental science" is restored.  The article "Basic science" had redirected to "Fundamental science", which you recently redirected to "Basic research".  How shall we explain basic research, basic science, and fundamental science if their combined article is not about the aims and nature of science?  At the very least, the article "Basic research" ought to be on the aims and nature of basic research, which occurs in basic science that together with applied science and its applied research are the whole enterprise science.  How shall one explain basic research without explaining basic science, applied science, and applied research: the whole enterprise science?


 * The only particular error that I have made on this talkpage is my miscounting of scientific versus nonscientific sources. On this talkpage, I had said, "Apart from the scientific sources I cited in 'Fundamental science', this article 'Basic research' uses, as I count, only one scientific source, anyway, but cites many nonscientific sources".  Now that I look more carefully, I see that the citations not imported from "Fundamental science" included three scientific sources, and about as few, not many, nonscientific sources.  In any case, the citations that I added to the article "Fundamental science" indeed substantiate my statements in the article.  Please, actually refer to the citations, not blindly disagree with them.  Somehow, you ignore your error's explicit correction, backed by citations, and insist that medicine is science.


 * Medicine is done by a physician, who works in a clinic and has the degree MD. Science is done by a scientist, who has the degree PhD.  A physicianscientist has the degrees MD and PhD, and usually works as a medical scientist, an applied scientist.  Medical sciences borrow and apply some knowledge from biology—such as the basic sciences virology and microbiology—as deemed relevant to medicine.  Thus, the medical sciences—such as clinical virology and medical microbiology—are applied sciences.  This Western medical paradigm is termed biomedicine—implied when "medicine" is called "science"—but medicine per se is healthcare, not science.  Medical scientists often do basic research, thus contribute to basic science, which crosswork does not unify applied and basic science.  A medical virology textbook discusses only human viruses—one subset of animal viruses—sorts them by diseases, and focuses on pathology, immunology, and epidemiology.  A basic virology textbook discusses animal viruses, plant viruses, and bacterial viruses—perhaps also fungal viruses and amoebic viruses—and focuses on molecular biology, molecular genetics, and immunology, giving lesser treatment to pathology and epidemiology.


 * As the citations from the article "Fundamental science" clarify, certain sciences are basic sciences (such as physics, biology, and chemistry), whereas other sciences are applied sciences (such as biomedicine, engineering, and epidemiology). Many projects in applied research incorporate basic research, too—hence, research and development—and many researchers do both basic and applied research.  But merely that theoretical physicist Richard Feynman participated in the Manhattan Project—a basic scientist contributing to applied science—does not mean that there is no difference between physics and engineering.  The article "Fundamental science" that I wrote could be improved, and I am all for improvement.  For instance, not all branches of cognitive science are basic science—artificial intelligence is applied science—and so I wrote that portion somewhat crudely.  But you deleted the whole article, and misuse parts of it while foisting your own naive confusion when instead you could have simply learned from the intact article.  Your assumptions and rhetoric are commonplace and populist, but are extremely far off any conventional nomenclature held by the relevant scholars and scientists.  —  Occurring (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Quickly Googling, I find this: "Fundamental physics principles touch all of the basic sciences—astronomy, biology, chemistry and geology, as well as all the applied sciences and engineering" ["Physics Major & Minor", University of Richmond website, accessed 17 Mar 2015]. [[User:Occurring|Occurring]] (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Biology, physics, and chemistry have been called the basic sciences. From this point of view astronomy is part of physics and chemistry, psychology emerges from biology, geology rests on all three basic sciences, and physical geography is one phase of geology. ... The student who has an aptitude for science will, in college, find opportunity for study in the basic sciences and their many subdivisions—paleontology, geology, astronomy, archeology, and anthropology" [Horn JL, The Education of Your Child, Stanford University Press, 1939 / Oxford University Press, 1939, p 205]. Occurring (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Thus, an applied science differs from its basic science partner mostly in its problematics (P) and aims (A). Further, its domain D will be narrower.  For example, in contrast to human biology, medical research studies only those properties of humans that concern, directly or indirectly, matters of health.  The same holds for clinical psychology as opposed to psychology in general" [Mahner M, "Demarcating science from nonscience", in Kuipers TAF, ed, General Philosophy of Science: Focal Issues, in Gabbay DM, Thagard P & Woods J, eds, Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Amsterdam & Oxford: Elsevier, 2007, p 539]. Occurring (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "This book is written with the intent to highlight the fact that it is necessary to expend considerable effort bringing together scientists, engineers, and doctors to address important problems in the medical sciences" / "The development of interdisciplinary activities involving the various basic sciences—biology, physics, chemistry, and mathematics, and their applied counterparts, engineering, and technology—is a necessary key to unlocking the mysteries of medicine, which at the moment is a curious admixture of art, craft, and science" [Mollica F, Preziosi L & Rajagopal KR, Modeling of Biological Materials, New York: Springer, 2007, p xiii]. Occurring (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is overlap between basic science and applied science, especially in biological sciences, but there is still a general distinction of basic science, principally physics, chemistry, and biology. There being no absolute division between cold and hot does not mean that boiling water is not hot and that freezing water is not cold.  Yes, physics, chemistry, and biology can be framed as relating to, or even including some subbranches that are, engineering, but we still recognize physics, chemistry, and biology as basic sciences, while chemical engineering applies chemistry [Messler RW Jr, The Essence of Materials for Engineers, Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett, 2011, pp 5–9]. Occurring (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Starting off with a set of brief comments:
 * In the first paragraph, are the questions rhetorical? (I don't ask rhetorical questions, btw.) I'll answer anyways. Yes, the Basic research article should include information on the aims and nature of basic research. However, basic science and applied science together should not contain all the content from Science. The way article scope should be treated is mostly described at WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.
 * In your second paragraph, could you please clarify what you refer to as my error? If it is about the basic/applied distinction, note that I did refer to the citations in my response.
 * In your third paragraph: medicine not being science is possibly a tenable position, but I suggest you first get consensus for that at the article Medicine. Also, if you insist that I should source what I consider to be fairly basic statements (which is perfectly acceptable, of course), then I request that you apply that to your own comments here. If you do, please make sure you search for competing citations as well!
 * I didn't delete the article; I merged it. (Deletion, as Wikipedia uses the term, is done at WP:AFD.) If you aren't sure how to retrieve the text, it is here. The version of this article from before the merge is here and the difference is here.
 * Please don't make personal attacks.

My point on the basic/applied distinction is that the article should not assume that (for example) biology is basic or is applied. This is different from saying that distinguishing fields of sciences as entirely basic or applied is not a valid perspective. Thank you for supplying quotes from sources that do this. However, the level of support isn't great: in order, we have a university website describing one of its programs, a 1939 book written for parents discussing choice of college courses (which really only supports a "have been called" statement), the Kuipers source which opens its discussion of the distinctions with "I shall propose the following distinctions" (so that source cannot be used to support the contention that these distinctions are typical) and the final source which is probably useful (though I observe, with reference to a previous point, that you have quoted a section describing medicine as an "admixture of art, craft, and science").

In contrast, we have the sources you cited previously, both of which you commented favorably on: Gonzalez, which makes distinctions primarily based on goals and other characteristics, and the NAS which explicitly makes a distinction between basic and applied within disciplines. We also have the citations currently in the article, e.g., which also describe motivation as being a (perhaps the) defining characteristic of the distinction. Since we have conflicting citations, we can't include content that assumes one position is true - the policy for this is WP:WEIGHT. Only in cases of clear and significant imbalance among the sources can we consider describing one position as factual. I am willing to consider evidence about this, but thus far I think the weight leans towards primarily distinguishing based on goals or motivation.

Again: what specific changes are you proposing? What is your comment on restoring Fundamental science with the section now called Physics? Are there other changes you would make first? These are the most important questions, in my view - they are the ones that will let us move forwards.  Sunrise    (talk)  09:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Basic research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020130308/http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Education/factsheet_CuriosityCreatesCures.htm to http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Education/factsheet_CuriosityCreatesCures.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Where is content from the article "Fundamental science"?
"Fundamental science", once its own article, now redirects to "Basic science". Although fundamental science is a synonym for basic science—as distinguished from applied science—this usage is simple, fairly uncommon, and covered by mere mention. Due is a link to the article on "Fundamental science" for the term's meaning more important.

The main cultural and historic significance of fundamental science is in the philosophy of science, where the term reflects a conceived unity of science and the associating ambition or rejection of theory reduction, that is, reducing one science to another science that more basic/fundamental ontologically. And in this sense, fundamental science is distinguished from the special sciences.

In this conception, still dominant but often tacit, the various empirical sciences are conceived as networked special sciences, such as biology and economics, that rest upon, and stem from, a shared source and foundation in the theorized fundamental entities of nature, whose purportedly fundamental interactions are modeled in fundamental physics, the fundamental science [Jordi C, "The unity of science", in Zalta EN, ed., SEP, Fall 2017].

Often central, this tenet of Western philosophy fostered the establishment of philosophy of science as an autonomous academic discipline during the 20th century via the logical empiricists, led in America by Carl Hempel. Now all of that history and philosophy is gone, reduced to what could be covered in a brief mention: sometimes fundamental science means simply "basic science". Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article "Unity of science" also lacks the content from the onetime article "Fundamental science". — Occurring (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)