I don't want to feel like I have to exaggerate about applied or translational aspects of, e.g., categorisation modelling. They exist, don't get me wrong, but my point is they don't HAVE to.
-
-
Show this thread
-
I don't want anybody to think that if we can't (yet/ever) have a practical use for something that it's a priori not worth doing. I say this in part because I've seen these arguments sometimes, especially used against academia more broadly (like against arts and humanities).
Show this thread -
The crux here is that each person, especially as a function of political ideology, has a different metric to answer "is this research useful outside academia?" Many would love to kill off basic research and, e.g., just do engineering. Basic research has value in its own right.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is all true, but I wonder if we should expect a disengaged person to understand that, especially in a brief conversation on an elevator. You have to pick your battles.
-
Not the point of this thread though.
-
Unless you only read my first tweet?
-
I had read the thread, and it was well said. I may have misinterpreted though.
-
Basically I really agree with what the author of the original thread said hence why I said "I love this thread" but I used it as a jumping off point because they only highlighted a deep issue.
-
*only = also
-
Yep, I completely agree that we should feel comfortable with basic science and it slightly grates on me that we should have to do the applied science dance as a rule.
-
But that said, I also get why the public demands the applied angle.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
"If we only did applied research, we would still be making just better spears." I wrote a blog on this a while ago out of frustration of having a grant turned down with no impact in it.https://jimgrange.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/grant-givers-embrace-and-fund-research-without-impact/ …
-
I always say: "the impact of basic research is understanding the world."

-
That's just not good enough. It doesn't necessarily fight climate change and support diversity, for instance.
-
Not sure that's a specific "impact" nor unique to basic science.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I agree 100%! To seek knowledge is to be human.
-
It’s also important to note that most applications of basic science are things that were not the goal when the science was done. Psychologists in the 1980s had no idea that their research would pave the way for Siri and Alexa.
-
The heart of science lives in the domain of serendipity That in itself is pretty astounding
-
It's sad people want to change that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There's one example that I love: scientists studied the skin of a worm, and their discoveries affected the design of a new space suit. Applications are not always straightforward. (also I told this story so many times I'm no longer sure if it's true, but it gets the point across)
-
No way they could have known that a priori, of course.
-
Absolutely. We often can't know what implications our basic science will bring. Also, applicative science is always better when it's based on solid theoretical understanding.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.