christophergaskins

Interesting concept, but having everyone conduct only practical research would not be sustainable. With fundamental research the application may not become obvious for years or decades, but those discoveries are the basis of practical research.

Very well said. There is a place for both. I am more interested in the importance of scientific dialogue between the two worlds- academia and the clinical space. There may be much to be learned and appreciated on both sides.

E.g i was at a Maths ppt at a Red Brick uni open day recently & to conclude the talk they wheeled in the phd student! Subject: Patterns in Nature!!! Is there a correlation between patterns & can you build a mathematical model? 7rs to do that!! You could see their faces sink!!!

A PhD is a research apprenticeship. It should be about training high quality researchers regardless of the field and it's potential direct impacts. There has to be room for fundamental work. I say this as an applied researcher and practitioner outside academia.

Very valid point!

This is a very interesting statement. I can honestly say that my experience in earning my PhD is exactly the vision expressed.

I am fortunate that my experience is a little different. Possibly because I had a translational lense and clinical experience first before coming into a basic science program. But this vision is very prevalent in academia.

I think one needs to be careful with expectations and language. A PhD could discover something new and useful, but it might not, and a carefully constructed thesis that addresses a certain set of questions which yields negative results, could still be worthy of a PhD.

Cambridge is doing this well: a PhD needs to be a scientific contribution- no need that it is a novel finding or published.