Menu
Home Explore People Places Arts History Plants & Animals Science Life & Culture Technology
On this page
Basic research
Scientific discovery and improvement of scientific knowledge

Basic research, also called pure research, fundamental research, basic science, or pure science, is a type of scientific research with the aim of improving scientific theories for better understanding and prediction of natural or other phenomena. In contrast, applied research uses scientific theories to develop technology or techniques, which can be used to intervene and alter natural or other phenomena. Though often driven simply by curiosity, basic research often fuels the technological innovations of applied science. The two aims are often practiced simultaneously in coordinated research and development.

In addition to innovations, basic research serves to provide insights and public support of nature, possibly improving conservation efforts. Technological innovations may influence engineering concepts, such as the beak of a kingfisher influencing the design of a high-speed bullet train.

We don't have any images related to Basic research yet.
We don't have any YouTube videos related to Basic research yet.
We don't have any PDF documents related to Basic research yet.
We don't have any Books related to Basic research yet.

Overview

Basic research advances fundamental knowledge about the world. It focuses on creating and refuting or supporting theories that explain observed phenomena. Pure research is the source of most new scientific ideas and ways of thinking about the world. It can be exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory; however, explanatory research is the most common.

Basic research generates new ideas, principles, and theories, which may not be immediately utilized but nonetheless form the basis of progress and development in different fields. Today's computers, for example, could not exist without research in pure mathematics conducted over a century ago, for which there was no known practical application at the time. Basic research rarely helps practitioners directly with their everyday concerns; nevertheless, it stimulates new ways of thinking that have the potential to revolutionize and dramatically improve how practitioners deal with a problem in the future.

By country

In the United States, basic research is funded mainly by the federal government and done mainly at universities and institutes.7 As government funding has diminished in the 2010s, however, private funding is increasingly important.8

Basic versus applied science

Main articles: Applied science and Translational research

Applied science focuses on the development of technology and techniques. In contrast, basic science develops scientific knowledge and predictions, principally in natural sciences but also in other empirical sciences, which are used as the scientific foundation for applied science. Basic science develops and establishes information to predict phenomena and perhaps to understand nature, whereas applied science uses portions of basic science to develop interventions via technology or technique to alter events or outcomes.910 Applied and basic sciences can interface closely in research and development.1112 The interface between basic research and applied research has been studied by the National Science Foundation.

A worker in basic scientific research is motivated by a driving curiosity about the unknown. When his explorations yield new knowledge, he experiences the satisfaction of those who first attain the summit of a mountain or the upper reaches of a river flowing through unmapped territory. Discovery of truth and understanding of nature are his objectives. His professional standing among his fellows depends upon the originality and soundness of his work. Creativeness in science is of a cloth with that of the poet or painter.13

It conducted a study in which it traced the relationship between basic scientific research efforts and the development of major innovations, such as oral contraceptives and videotape recorders. This study found that basic research played a key role in the development in all of the innovations. The number of basic science research that assisted in the production of a given innovation peaked between 20 and 30 years before the innovation itself. While most innovation takes the form of applied science and most innovation occurs in the private sector, basic research is a necessary precursor to almost all applied science and associated instances of innovation. Roughly 76% of basic research is conducted by universities.14

A distinction can be made between basic science and disciplines such as medicine and technology.1516171819 They can be grouped as STM (science, technology, and medicine; not to be confused with STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics]) or STS (science, technology, and society). These groups are interrelated and influence each other,2021222324 although they may differ in the specifics such as methods and standards.25262728293031323334353637383940[excessive citations]

The Nobel Prize mixes basic with applied sciences for its award in Physiology or Medicine. In contrast, the Royal Society of London awards distinguish natural science from applied science.41

See also

Further reading

References

  1. "What is basic research?" (PDF). National Science Foundation. Retrieved May 31, 2014. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1953/annualreports/ar_1953_sec6.pdf ↩

  2. "Curiosity creates cures: The value and impact of basic research Archived October 20, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health. http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Education/factsheet_CuriosityCreatesCures.htm ↩

  3. "ICSU position statement: The value of basic scientific research" Archived 2017-05-06 at the Wayback Machine, International Council for Science, December 2004. http://www.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/value-scientific-research ↩

  4. Yong, Ed (2022). An Immense World. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-593-13324-8. OCLC 1333131287. 978-0-593-13324-8 ↩

  5. Cook, Carly N.; Mascia, Michael B.; Schwartz, Mark W.; Possingham, Hugh P.; Fuller, Richard A. (April 10, 2013). "Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary". Conservation Biology. 27 (4): 669–678. Bibcode:2013ConBi..27..669C. doi:10.1111/cobi.12050. ISSN 0888-8892. PMC 3761186. PMID 23574343. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3761186 ↩

  6. "High Speed Train Inspired by the Kingfisher — Innovation — AskNature". asknature.org. Retrieved November 29, 2022. https://asknature.org/innovation/high-speed-train-inspired-by-the-kingfisher/ ↩

  7. Ganapati, Priya (August 27, 2008). "Bell Labs kills fundamental physics research". Wired. Archived from the original on August 28, 2008. Retrieved August 28, 2008. http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/08/bell-labs-kills.html ↩

  8. William J. Broad (March 15, 2014). "Billionaires with big ideas are privatizing American science". The New York Times. Retrieved December 26, 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html ↩

  9. Davis, Bernard D. (March 2000). "Limited scope of science". Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 64 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000. PMC 98983. PMID 10704471. & "Technology" in Bernard Davis (March 2000). "The scientist's world". Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 64 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000. PMC 98983. PMID 10704471. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC98983 ↩

  10. James McCormick (2001). "Scientific medicine—fact of fiction? The contribution of science to medicine". Occasional Paper (Royal College of General Practitioners) (80): 3–6. PMC 2560978. PMID 19790950. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560978 ↩

  11. Gerard Piel, "Science and the next fifty years", § "Applied vs basic science", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1954 Jan;10(1):17–20, p 18. /wiki/Gerard_Piel ↩

  12. Ruth-Marie E Fincher, Paul M Wallach & W Scott Richardson, "Basic science right, not basic science lite: Medical education at a crossroad", Journal of General Internal Medicine, Nov 2009;24(11):1255–58, abstract: "Thoughtful changes in education provide the opportunity to improve understanding of fundamental sciences, the process of scientific inquiry, and translation of that knowledge to clinical practice". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771241 ↩

  13. "What is basic research?" (PDF). National Science Foundation. Retrieved May 31, 2014. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1953/annualreports/ar_1953_sec6.pdf ↩

  14. Stephan, Paula (2012). How Economics Shapes Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-674-04971-0. 978-0-674-04971-0 ↩

  15. Davis, Bernard D. (March 2000). "Limited scope of science". Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 64 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000. PMC 98983. PMID 10704471. & "Technology" in Bernard Davis (March 2000). "The scientist's world". Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 64 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000. PMC 98983. PMID 10704471. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC98983 ↩

  16. James McCormick (2001). "Scientific medicine—fact of fiction? The contribution of science to medicine". Occasional Paper (Royal College of General Practitioners) (80): 3–6. PMC 2560978. PMID 19790950. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560978 ↩

  17. Richard Smith (March 2006). "The trouble with medical journals". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99 (3): 115–9. doi:10.1177/014107680609900311. PMC 1383755. PMID 16508048. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383755 ↩

  18. Leon Eisenberg (March 1988). "Science in medicine: Too much or too little and too limited in scope?". American Journal of Medicine. 84 (3 Pt 1): 483–91. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(88)90270-7. PMID 3348249. /wiki/Leon_Eisenberg ↩

  19. J N Clarke; S Arnold; M Everest & K Whitfield (January 2007). "The paradoxical reliance on allopathic medicine and positivist science among skeptical audiences". Social Science & Medicine. 64 (1): 164–73. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.038. PMID 17045377. /wiki/Doi_(identifier) ↩

  20. Eric Holtzman (1981). "Science, philosophy, and society: Some recent books". International Journal of Health Services. 11 (1): 123–49. doi:10.2190/l5eu-e7pc-hxg6-euml. PMID 7016767. S2CID 25401644. /wiki/Doi_(identifier) ↩

  21. P M Strong PM & K McPherson (1982). "Natural science and medicine: Social science and medicine: Some methodological controversies". Social Science & Medicine. 16 (6): 643–57. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(82)90454-3. PMID 7089600. /wiki/Doi_(identifier) ↩

  22. Lucien R Karhausen (2000). "Causation: The elusive grail of epidemiology". Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 3 (1): 59–67. doi:10.1023/A:1009970730507. PMID 11080970. S2CID 24260908. /wiki/Doi_(identifier) ↩

  23. K Bayertz & P Nevers (1998). Biology as technology. Clio Medica. Vol. 48. pp. 108–32. PMID 9646019. /wiki/PMID_(identifier) ↩

  24. John V Pickstone & Michael Worboys (March 2011). "Focus: Between and beyond 'histories of science' and 'histories of medicine'—introduction". Isis. 102 (1): 97–101. doi:10.1086/658658. PMID 21667777. S2CID 224835675. /wiki/Doi_(identifier) ↩

  25. James McCormick (2001). "Scientific medicine—fact of fiction? The contribution of science to medicine". Occasional Paper (Royal College of General Practitioners) (80): 3–6. PMC 2560978. PMID 19790950. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560978 ↩

  26. Richard Smith (March 2006). "The trouble with medical journals". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99 (3): 115–9. doi:10.1177/014107680609900311. PMC 1383755. PMID 16508048. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383755 ↩

  27. John V Pickstone & Michael Worboys (March 2011). "Focus: Between and beyond 'histories of science' and 'histories of medicine'—introduction". Isis. 102 (1): 97–101. doi:10.1086/658658. PMID 21667777. S2CID 224835675. /wiki/Doi_(identifier) ↩

  28. Lester S King (May 1983). "Medicine in the USA: Historical vignettes: XI: Medicine seeks to be 'scientific'". JAMA. 249 (18): 2475–9. doi:10.1001/jama.1983.03330420025028. PMID 6341631. /wiki/Lester_S._King ↩

  29. Thomas Marshall (April 1997). "Scientific knowledge in medicine: A new clinical epistemology?". Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 3 (2): 133–8. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00075.x. PMID 9276588. /wiki/Doi_(identifier) ↩

  30. A Zalewski (March 1999). "Importance of philosophy of science to the history of medical thinking". Croatian Medical Journal. 40 (1): 8–13. PMID 9933889. http://www.cmj.hr/1999/40/1/9933889.htm ↩

  31. Kevork Hopayian (May 2004). "Why medicine still needs a scientific foundation: Restating the hypotheticodeductive model—part two". British Journal of General Practice. 54 (502): 402–3. PMC 1266186. PMID 15372724. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1266186 ↩

  32. A Skurvydas (2005). "New methodology in biomedical science: Methodological errors in classical science". Medicina. 41 (1): 7–16. PMID 15687745. Archived from the original on November 4, 2005. Retrieved March 8, 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20051104063456/http://medicina.kmu.lt/0501/0501-02e.htm ↩

  33. Ronald A Arky (2007). "Abe Flexner, where are you? We need you!". Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association. 118: 89–96. PMC 1863593. PMID 18528492. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1863593 ↩

  34. Peter Byass (2011). "The democratic fallacy in matters of clinical opinion: Implications for analysing cause-of-death data". Emerging Themes in Epidemiology. 8 (1): 1. doi:10.1186/1742-7622-8-1. PMC 3026021. PMID 21223568. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3026021 ↩

  35. M Brandon Westover; Kenneth D Westover KD & Matt T Bianchi (2011). "Significance testing as perverse probabilistic reasoning". BMC Medicine. 9: 20. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-20. PMC 3058025. PMID 21356064. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058025 ↩

  36. Alfredo Morabia (2005). "Epidemiological causality". History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 27 (3–4): 365–79. PMID 16898206. /wiki/PMID_(identifier) ↩

  37. Michael Kundi (July 2006). "Causality and the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence". Environmental Health Perspectives. 114 (7): 969–74. Bibcode:2006EnvHP.114..969K. doi:10.1289/ehp.8297. PMC 1513293. PMID 16835045. /wiki/Michael_Kundi ↩

  38. Andrew C Ward (2009). "The role of causal criteria in causal inferences: Bradford Hill's 'aspects of association'". Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations. 6: 2. doi:10.1186/1742-5573-6-2. PMC 2706236. PMID 19534788. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706236 ↩

  39. Georg W Kreutzberg (May 2005). "Scientists and the marketplace of opinions: Scientific credibility takes on a different meaning when reaching out to the public". EMBO Reports. 6 (5): 393–6. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400405. PMC 1299311. PMID 15864285. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299311 ↩

  40. John Worrall (April 2010). "Evidence: Philosophy of science meets medicine". Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 16 (2): 356–62. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01400.x. PMID 20367864. /wiki/John_Worrall_(philosopher) ↩

  41. "Medals, Awards & Prize lectures", The Royal Society website, accessed 22 Sep 2013. http://royalsociety.org/awards/medals-awards-prizes ↩