FALL/WINTER 2007
Noodling for answers
By Peter Hollenbeck, professor and associate head of the Department of Biological Sciences
Most academic scientists carry out “basic” research — studies driven by their curiosity about how the world works, rather than by foreseeable pay offs in practical applications, economic benefits, fame, or fortune. Why do we do this? Why should the public care? And why should the taxpayer help to fund this kind of work?
I can answer the first two questions in just the manner you’d expect of an academic: knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a wonderful thing. Part of what makes us human is that we want to understand atoms and human physiology, weather systems and ecosystems. All educated citizens of the 21st century can come along for the ride, reading the newspaper science section, visiting the museum or the NASA Web site to enjoy the waves of new knowledge that basic research brings us.
But why should the public pay for basic research? What do we get back when we fund studies of subatomic particles or climate or fruit flies? The answers lie all around us, in the products and technologies that support our lives — most of which were as unknown as dark matter just one or two generations ago. Without basic research in organic chemistry, no plastics. Without information and game theory, no computers. Without studies of cell division, no anti-cancer drugs.
So, why not just target all of our research efforts toward developing exactly what we need? History shows us how difficult it is to anticipate what areas of study will produce solutions to the needs and problems of our society. In my own field of biological sciences, the most high-impact discoveries were either accidental or incidental. Accidental, as when Alexander Fleming, studying bacteria in a petri dish, made the chance observation of toxic mold that led to penicillin, and onward to all antibiotics. Incidental, as when the rapid recent development of anti-HIV drugs was made possible by previous decades of curiosity-driven research into an obscure class of pathogens called retroviruses.
So is this really how we solve problems? By letting bright, highly-motivated people study whatever they want? It sounds suspicious, doesn’t it? And it can take a great deal of additional work to get from research results to a solution to a real world problem. But basic research gives us the raw material. When you read a science headline, somebody’s noodling in the lab has caught the fancy of a journalist. And when you take a new drug, somebody’s noodling has sprouted practical benefits.