THE SUPPORT OF BASIC RESEARCH 



its ennobling quality, is the more important? The two are in- 

 commensurable, and there can be no answer. The research 

 scholar deeply engrossed in a problem may be carried forward 

 by the sheer intellectual excitement of probing nature's secrets. 

 Other persons may take most satisfaction in the practical result. 

 Neither is wrong. Both reasons are good. 



Basic and Applied Research 



If words could talk, research would surely complain of 

 being overworked. The word is used to describe the scholarly 

 activities of a Nobel laureate and to give prestige to such im- 

 mediately useful records as counting the customers of a chain 

 store. It may in one sentence be used to describe the search for 

 the laws of nature and in another the search for facts to sup- 

 port a conclusion already reached. 



Even if the misuses are left out of consideration, a wide 

 range of activities can properly be described as research. Within 

 this wide range, various adjectives are used to describe special 

 types of research. Basic research and applied research are the 

 most familiar, but there are others, such as practical research, 

 developmental research, programmatic research, or materials 

 research. All these terms are useful, but none has sharp bound- 

 aries, and one cannot be cleanly separated from another. From 

 watching a scientist at work, it would frequently be quite impos- 

 sible to decide which adjective most accurately described his 

 research. 



Yet there are real differences between types of research. 

 A scientist sometimes explicitly seeks information that will help 

 to solve a practical problem. 1 Ie wants to cure a disease, to 

 develop a drought-resistant plant, to design a nose cone that will 

 not burn up on reentering the atmosphere, to build an atomic 

 power plant. The motivation to contribute to a specific practical 

 need may be so strong that the scientist willingly disregards 



^53 



