Whats the use in researching..

[blike]

Today a friend (who is far removed from anything science) asked me why the government wastes billions of dollars a year on "useless" science. This is a good question. Why do huge amounts of funds go towards things like studying the social behavior of roaches in australia, when it should be going towards things like cancer and AIDS? I struggled with the question a bit, because I think all true science is in some way valuable, even if it merely adds to our knowledge. I found this notion extremely hard to explain, especially in light of funds going towards projects like these instead of more important issues. As a scientist, what is the answer to this question?

[spacemanspiff]

so this is kind of a pragmaitc science vs 'pure' science issue.

 

i'm a big proponent of pure research. even i will admit that AIDS and cancer research is proably more important than the social habits of roaches.

 

the thing is all science should have some merrit whether it be helping people now, as in AIDS reseach, or furthering human understanding. of course in theory anything could fit into the latter category, but some topics do seem more important than others.

 

i guess it depends on what you think is more valuable. more tangible imediate results, or the more long term benefits of pure research.

 

 

in the case of AIDS/cancer don't we already through alot of money at that? i doubt that slightly more money will drasticly change the trajectory of the reseach.

[Glider]

I don't know the answer (there is some research I wonder about myself). But I do have an example of the value of research your friend might consider pointless. A case in point is the recent story (last couple of years) of the guy researching ants in Africa.

 

Well, he was wandering around in the bush, doing his 'thang' and trying to avoid getting eaten alive when it suddenly occurred to him that although ants live in colonies of millions, and in close quarters, no-one had ever seen or heard of a colony being wiped out through infection. As any fule kno, all orgnisms are prone to infection, and those organisms that live in close quarters to each other are therefore prone to epedemics, so the question occured to him: Why not (apparently) ants?

 

This started him on an interesting offshoot of his research. He called in some buddies (chemical pathologists, microbiologists and so-on) and started trying to answer this question. As it turns out, the answer is quite simple, ants have evolved an endogenous antibiotic defence mechanism to fend off infection. They excrete a substance which coats their bodies. This substance is a kind of organic antibiotic something like 50 times more potent than penicillin.

 

As you're probably aware, our previous abuses of antibiotics have led to the development of many antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria such as resistant forms of tuberculosis and Methycillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aurius (MRSA), which kills hundred of hospital patients a year all over the world. Other lines of defense such as flucloxacillin, erythromycin and the cephalosporins, are not effective and MRSA has developed a strain which is now resistant to vancomycin and some showing resistance to teicoplanin. This spells big trouble. S. Aurius is a part of our natural bodily fauna. If you swab under your watch strap and culture the swab, you will find S. Aurius. It is harmless to healthy people, but if your immunocompetence is compromised (e.g. you are very ill), or you innoculate a wound with it (e.g. through surgery), it's bad. If the infection is due to one of the resistant strains, it's a lot worse.

 

So, it doesn't take a scientist to put together, on the one hand, our failing defences against bugs like MRSA et al. and on the other hand, the dicovery of an organic, broad spectrum antibiotic 50 times more effective than anything we currently have. Needless to say, work is currently underway to see if this stuff can be synthesised in large quantities and in forms that can be safely used to treat human infections. All from some dude studying ants.

 

Research is like a box of chocolates...ya never know what yor gonna git.

[Skye]

"Great money comes from taxes; taxes come from alot of folks who don't have much money. Spend that money wisely."

 

I think part of the problem is the seemingly random nature of pure research in finding solutions to problems people have. It's hard to wisely play the lottery. That being said applied research is just that, there'd be nothing to apply without pure research. Perhaps it would be better to look at is as a production line of useful information.

 

The applied/pure research demarkation seems to be about where people are able to claim intellectual property rights at. That guy researching ants probably won't see a cent (or penny) of the money made out of it, nor his grantors. If we allowed pure researchers to claim rights over what they find then I would expect a flood of money coming out of pure research, and taxpayers wouldn't feel ripped off.

[the GardenGnome]

One could also say why waste billions of dollars on war, when the public education is so crappy.

 

Finding a cure for a disease requires research. I don't think billions of dollars are being spent on the study of roaches. You gain knowledge from research, so without it you would'nt know anything.

[Ryoken]

Personally i think that billions are spent on useless science each year because scientist want to research within their interests. Who ever looks at the big picture when your immediate satisfaction is at stake. Scientists are people too.

 

Also, a cure for AIDS might come out of the study of roach behaviour. We don't know until we try.

[spuriousmonkey]

if we wouldn't have useless science we would have to find other jobs for all these highly trained scientists who are incapable of doing real work. Imagine thousands of unemployed nerds with nothing on their hands. Let's say that half has access to a computer...hell will brake lose. The other half will probably be a nuisance to society in another destructive way, hindering all the nice normal people to do their normal business.

 

Without useless science there would be anarchy.

[daisy]

As a research scientist I come across a lot of "bad" science and a lot of what some people might call "useless" science. It's important to distinguish between the two. Someone counting ants on a twig may be conducting very "good" science with excellent experimental design but this still may be regarded as "useless". Personally, I would rather read papers on "useless" science that is well designed and contains proper controls etc. than be disappointed by bad science in a field that is considered "worthy" by others. It's surprising how much crap you see out there even in high-tech, cutting edge fields. Discrimination is the key.

[the GardenGnome]

What Ryoken said.

[Radical Edward]

useless science, is infinitely more useful than useless art.

 

I would much rather give money to someone who wants to look at ants, than someone who wants to appreciates squares on a wall.

[Ryoken]

or can see indefenite beauty in a stripe...

But you can't blame them,some of those artists make some good $$$, sometimes

 

I would think that science is never useless, we will continue to try to discover things until we know everything, we will study ant behaviour sooner or later, it is a given.

 

The never ending search for happiness in discovery, gotta love it!