Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My point is, ALL the major discoveries were done doing basic research - which then provides the foundation for every discovery that follows - including those with a specific goal in mind. This is true in ALL areas of scientific research.
Unless you're willing to define the term "basic research," I don't know what exactly your point is here.
I postulate that all research should be done with the goal of furthering the human experience. It need not be directed to a specific end (i.e. stage 2 colorectal cancer drug), but should be undertaken with the intent that the knowledge gained result in improvement of the human condition.
Unless you're willing to define the term "basic research," I don't know what exactly your point is here.
I postulate that all research should be done with the goal of furthering the human experience. It need not be directed to a specific end (i.e. stage 2 colorectal cancer drug), but should be undertaken with the intent that the knowledge gained result in improvement of the human condition.
Basic Research - research WITHOUT a specific goal in mind to improve the human condition. Did the first folks looking through microscopes have in mind the idea that they were about to improve the human condition? I doubt it. They were simply curious to see what they could see. How could they know that the tiny creatures they saw swimming about were responsible for so many diseases? The fact is, they didn't. They were in effect simply doing basic research - seeing what was there.
My point is, you NEVER know where a discovery may lead.
As to the original question, who would be against a scientist "doing their thing" on pure research? As pointed out earlier, most useful discoveries are just lab curiosities when first found. Only the worst kind of Luddite would object.
Pure research is generally the work of universities, where tenured professors research whatever interests them.
Pure science is neither good nor evil, neither useful or useless. Almost by definition, you don't know where it will go. Probably most pure research does not have any practical impact, instead it just remains in the lab. For now anyway.
Applied research is easier to get funding for, usually.
Unless you're willing to define the term "basic research," I don't know what exactly your point is here.
I postulate that all research should be done with the goal of furthering the human experience. It need not be directed to a specific end (i.e. stage 2 colorectal cancer drug), but should be undertaken with the intent that the knowledge gained result in improvement of the human condition.
Those scientists attempting to create an atom bomb did not have goals of "furthering the human experience", yet look what we have gotten from their research (and I'm not talking about nuclear weapons).
I posit that it doesn't matter what the intent of research is -- it can be for the good OR the detriment of humanity.
Basic Research - research WITHOUT a specific goal in mind to improve the human condition. Did the first folks looking through microscopes have in mind the idea that they were about to improve the human condition?
Are you talking about van Leeuwenhoek? Because his research began when he started trying to improve the microscope. His wasn't "basic research," it was directed towards the goal of improving the original microscope. Of course, once he saw what he was looking at, he made sketches, prompting other researchers to look into the field.
Was there a definite, radical improvement in medicine in mind? No. But his "research" was directed towards improving a product, and therefore the human experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuSuSushi
Those scientists attempting to create an atom bomb did not have goals of "furthering the human experience", yet look what we have gotten from their research (and I'm not talking about nuclear weapons).
Sure they did. The scientists researching atomic fission were interested in a new and plentiful source of energy. The fact that weaponization was the goal does not detract from the fact that they were researching a potential advancement in human technology.
Also, the OP's query was not about whether the directed research is inherently positive, but whether the new knowledge will "have no apparent benefit except knowledge itself?" Weaponized nuclear fission has a definite benefit - nuclear weapons.
The only reason America dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan was because it had 2 different types of atomic bombs so they wanted to field-test the uranium and the plutonium bomb on Japan in WWII.
Quote:
If we didn't discover it they would have....
This could easily be used as a justification to conduct the kind of Nazi experiments on ‘the enemy’ or convicts.
Because if WE don't do it THEY will have.
Originally Posted by coldwynn
Quote:
But there is a difference between giving a child a loaded gun and giving a reasonable adult the knowledge of the chemistry of iron, sulfur and nitrogen.
Not in my opinion.
Was it really necessary for America to nuke Japan twice or was it just to discover which type of atom bomb is the best?
If ya ask me we only have smart individual humans, but humanity as a whole is still as stupid as when it crawled out of the mud. The fact that we still wage wars for the same reasons as the very 1st war is proof that humanity hasn't evolved (much).
I guess I’m talking about the difference between wisdom (the ability to learn from your mistakes aka experience) and intelligence (scientific facts)?
This could easily be used as a justification to conduct the kind of Nazi experiments on ‘the enemy’ or convicts.
Because if WE don't do it THEY will have.
There are those who will argue that science is its own reason for being, that the value of knowledge can not be evaluated. As such, for these people, science should not be controlled by governments or morality, knowledge is its own reward.
On the other hand, there are those who would argue that since scientific investigation is becoming more and more expensive and so only large organizations such as the National Science Foundation can effectively support scientific research. And so, since this is tax dollars, science should be used in direct service to its people. Governments should only support applied science, scientific study that is directed toward producing a better quality of life for its people.
Should scientists be allowed to pursue ideas/research subjects that, within the scope of the foreseeable future, have no apparent benefit except knowledge itself?
There's probly plenty of science to go round for all. I would think the real issue would be funding.
Why would I want the government to restrict my research projects if I can get my neighbor to fund them for me.?
Why would I want the government to restrict my research projects if I can get my neighbor to fund them for me.?
Because governments (like most corporations) only want to help people if they get a profit out of it.
This can only happen when they've patented the end result of the research.
If they don't get anything out of it they won’t lift a finger to help you.
I mean it would be in our own best interest if AIDS was cured, but if this would actually happen the corporations who make AIDS medicine will lose a huge chunk of their profit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only reason America dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan was because it had 2 different types of atomic bombs so they wanted to field-test the uranium and the plutonium bomb on Japan in WWII. 
This could easily be used as a justification to conduct the kind of Nazi experiments on ‘the enemy’ or convicts. 
Not in my opinion.
The fact that we still wage wars for the same reasons as the very 1st war is proof that humanity hasn't evolved (much).
I guess I’m talking about the difference between wisdom (the ability to learn from your mistakes aka experience) and intelligence (scientific facts)?
It usually is when the road to hell is paved with nothing but good intentions.
