Pasteur's Quadrant

Stokes' book, Pasteur's Quadrant (1997) describes how Vannevar Bush got it wrong when he postulated a continuum from basic research to applied research. He claims that these are actually two separate dimensions along which research can be characterized. Pasteur was a good example of being high on both basic and applied research. He was not only looking for a cure for a specific disease, but he was also doing research on a basic mechanism of disease.

While NSF is best characterized as funding research high on the basic dimension, they are not likely to fund significant efforts that are high on the applied dimension. At least, that is true in comparison to other funding agencies. DARPA, for example, tends to fund research that is high on the applied research dimension, but not significantly so on the basic dimension. In fact, the "color of money" of DARPA tends to prohibit this. Defense research dollars are categorized according to whether they are basic or applied, but not both.

A particularly important challenge to face for a country seeking to maximize return on investment of research dollars is whether or not to spend funds on basic research because the return is so risky and so far in the future. This may be a false issue if one takes Stokes' view. Research topics can be identified that are both basic and applied, and there may be a way to do this intentionally.

Reviews of proposals from other countries has led me to believe that there is an emphasis on targeting research areas that will create industrial partnerships and quick wins in new applications. Unfortunately, the topics often involve the creation of an engineering artifact with new capabilities rather than deep investigation into the fundamentals of the science behind the topic. At the end of the project, a payoff might develop signaling success for the funder in demonstrating increased World market share in some area. At the rate at which competition drives engineering applications these days, however, that success is likely to be short-lived, unless a deep understanding of the principles involved are understood as well. With such a deeper scientific understanding, one can continue to create new artifacts and even understand the drivers for what makes them successful in the first place.