I found myself in a philosophical debate with a higher-up the other morning. The debate was about the content of a discussion document that I was asked to review and comment on for accuracy, and which was to go up higher yet for some potential decision making.
I should refine that statement… the debate was about one line that might have seemed inconsequential to many people, but which to me was a dangerous and broad stroke that had potential implications from a different perspective. There is often a bit of a brush-off of science when it doesn’t provide an immediate and/or obvious benefit. The pendulum seems to have swung in such a way in recent decades that research that doesn’t have any self-evident purpose beyond simple knowledge, that science for the sake of curiosity, is somehow less important and unworthy of funding. Such thinking couldn’t be farther from the truth.
I often feel compelled to point out the difference between basic and applied science and that just because an immediate benefit may not be obvious in many basic research projects, it does not mean they are valueless merely because the usefulness is not immediately obvious. It is important to recognize that our personal, political, and economic/societal, biases colour our perception of and response to many scientific inquiries.