Basic research, also calledpure research,fundamental research,basic science, orpure science, is a type ofscientific research with the aim of improving scientifictheories for better understanding andprediction of natural or other phenomena.[1] In contrast,applied research uses scientific theories to developtechnology or techniques, which can be used to intervene andalter natural or other phenomena. Though often driven simply bycuriosity,[2] basic research often fuels thetechnological innovations ofapplied science.[3] The two aims are often practiced simultaneously in coordinatedresearch and development.
In addition to innovations, basic research serves to provide insights and public support of nature, possibly improvingconservation efforts.[4][5] Technological innovations may influenceengineering concepts, such as the beak of akingfisher influencing the design of a high-speed bullet train.[6]
Despite smart people working on this problem for 50 years, we're still discovering surprisingly basic things about the earliest history of our world. It's quite humbling. — Matija Ćuk, scientist at theSETI Institute and lead researcher, November 2016[7]
Basic research advances fundamental knowledge about the world. It focuses on creating andrefuting or supportingtheories that explain observed phenomena. Pure research is the source of most new scientific ideas and ways of thinking about the world. It can beexploratory,descriptive, or explanatory; however, explanatory research is the most common.[citation needed]
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.[citation needed]
In the United States, basic research is funded mainly by the federal government and done mainly at universities and institutes.[8] As government funding has diminished in the 2010s, however, private funding is increasingly important.[9]
Applied science focuses on the development of technology and techniques. In contrast, basic science develops scientific knowledge and predictions, principally innatural sciences but also in other empirical sciences, which are used as the scientific foundation for applied science. Basic science develops and establishesinformation to predict phenomena and perhaps to understand nature, whereasapplied science uses portions of basic science to developinterventions via technology or technique to alter events or outcomes.[10][11] Applied and basic sciences can interface closely inresearch and development.[12][13] 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.[14]
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[clarification needed] 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.[15]
A distinction can be made between basic science and disciplines such as medicine and technology.[10][11][16][17][18] They can be grouped asSTM (science, technology, and medicine; not to be confused withSTEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics]) orSTS (science, technology, and society). These groups are interrelated and influence each other,[19][20][21][22][23] although they may differ in the specifics such as methods and standards.[11][16][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][excessive citations]
^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".
^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.PMID17045377.
^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.PMID7089600.
^K Bayertz & P Nevers (1998).Biology as technology. Clio Medica. Vol. 48. pp. 108–32.PMID9646019.
^abJohn 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.PMID21667777.S2CID224835675.
^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.PMID9276588.
