Journal Article - Issues in Science and Technology
RIP: The Basic/Applied Research Dichotomy
Terminology that does not reflect the rich connectivity and interaction of many types of research is a barrier to developing policies built on the realities of science and technology.
U.S. science policy since World War II has in large measure been driven by Vannevar Bush's famous paper Science—The Endless Frontier. Bush's separation of research into "basic" and "applied" domains has been enshrined in much of U.S. science and technology policy over the past seven decades, and this false dichotomy has become a barrier to the development of a coherent national innovation policy. Much of the debate centers on the appropriate federal role in innovation. Bush argued successfully that funding basic research was a necessary role for government, with the implication that applied research should be left to the auspices of markets. However, the original distinction does not reflect what actually happens in research, and its narrow focus on the stated goals of an individual research project prevents us from taking a more productive holistic view of the research enterprise....
Continue reading: http://www.issues.org/29.2/Venkatesh.html
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.
For more information on this publication:
Please contact
Science, Technology, and Public Policy
For Academic Citation:
Narayanamurti, Venkatesh, Tolu Odumosu, and Lee Vinsel. “RIP: The Basic/Applied Research Dichotomy.” Issues in Science and Technology, vol. XXIX. no. 2. (Winter 2013) .
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions
- The Boston Globe
The World Needs to Explore Solar Geoengineering as a Tool to Fight Climate Change
Video
- SNF Agora Institute
Election 2020 — Securing the Vote
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief
- Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use
Discussion Paper
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Why the United States Should Spread Democracy
Report
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
David Petraeus on Strategic Leadership
Terminology that does not reflect the rich connectivity and interaction of many types of research is a barrier to developing policies built on the realities of science and technology.
U.S. science policy since World War II has in large measure been driven by Vannevar Bush's famous paper Science—The Endless Frontier. Bush's separation of research into "basic" and "applied" domains has been enshrined in much of U.S. science and technology policy over the past seven decades, and this false dichotomy has become a barrier to the development of a coherent national innovation policy. Much of the debate centers on the appropriate federal role in innovation. Bush argued successfully that funding basic research was a necessary role for government, with the implication that applied research should be left to the auspices of markets. However, the original distinction does not reflect what actually happens in research, and its narrow focus on the stated goals of an individual research project prevents us from taking a more productive holistic view of the research enterprise....
Continue reading: http://www.issues.org/29.2/Venkatesh.html
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions - The Boston Globe
The World Needs to Explore Solar Geoengineering as a Tool to Fight Climate Change
Video - SNF Agora Institute
Election 2020 — Securing the Vote
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Policy Brief - Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Future of U.S. Nuclear Policy: The Case for No First Use
Discussion Paper - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Why the United States Should Spread Democracy
Report - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
David Petraeus on Strategic Leadership


