what is basic research study

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Basic Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Basic Research – Types, Methods and Examples

Table of Contents

Basic Research

Definition:

Basic Research, also known as Fundamental or Pure Research , is scientific research that aims to increase knowledge and understanding about the natural world without necessarily having any practical or immediate applications. It is driven by curiosity and the desire to explore new frontiers of knowledge rather than by the need to solve a specific problem or to develop a new product.

Types of Basic Research

Types of Basic Research are as follows:

Experimental Research

This type of research involves manipulating one or more variables to observe their effect on a particular phenomenon. It aims to test hypotheses and establish cause-and-effect relationships.

Observational Research

This type of research involves observing and documenting natural phenomena without manipulating any variables. It aims to describe and understand the behavior of the observed system.

Theoretical Research

This type of research involves developing and testing theories and models to explain natural phenomena. It aims to provide a framework for understanding and predicting observations and experiments.

Descriptive Research

This type of research involves describing and cataloging natural phenomena without attempting to explain or understand them. It aims to provide a comprehensive and accurate picture of the observed system.

Comparative Research

This type of research involves comparing different systems or phenomena to identify similarities and differences. It aims to understand the underlying principles that govern different natural phenomena.

Historical Research

This type of research involves studying past events, developments, and discoveries to understand how science has evolved over time. It aims to provide insights into the factors that have influenced scientific progress and the role of basic research in shaping our understanding of the world.

Data Collection Methods

Some common data collection methods used in basic research include:

• Observation : This involves watching and recording natural phenomena in a systematic and structured way. Observations can be made in a laboratory setting or in the field and can be qualitative or quantitative.
• Surveys and questionnaires: These are tools for collecting data from a large number of individuals about their attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and experiences. Surveys and questionnaires can be administered in person, by mail, or online.
• Interviews : Interviews involve asking questions to a person or a group of people to gather information about their experiences, opinions, and perspectives. Interviews can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured.
• Experiments : Experiments involve manipulating one or more variables and observing their effect on a particular phenomenon. Experiments can be conducted in a laboratory or in the field and can be controlled or naturalistic.
• Case studies : Case studies involve in-depth analysis of a particular individual, group, or phenomenon. Case studies can provide rich and detailed information about complex phenomena.
• Archival research : Archival research involves analyzing existing data, documents, and records to answer research questions. Archival research can be used to study historical events, trends, and developments.
• Simulation : Simulation involves creating a computer model of a particular phenomenon to study its behavior and predict its future outcomes. Simulation can be used to study complex systems that are difficult to study in the real world.

Data Analysis Methods

Some common data analysis methods used in basic research include:

• Descriptive statistics: This involves summarizing and describing data using measures such as mean, median, mode, and standard deviation. Descriptive statistics provide a simple and easy way to understand the basic properties of the data.
• Inferential statistics : This involves making inferences about a population based on data collected from a sample. Inferential statistics can be used to test hypotheses, estimate parameters, and quantify uncertainty.
• Qualitative analysis : This involves analyzing data that are not numerical in nature, such as text, images, or audio recordings. Qualitative analysis can involve coding, categorizing, and interpreting data to identify themes, patterns, and relationships.
• Content analysis: This involves analyzing the content of text, images, or audio recordings to identify specific words, phrases, or themes. Content analysis can be used to study communication, media, and discourse.
• Multivariate analysis: This involves analyzing data that have multiple variables or factors. Multivariate analysis can be used to identify patterns and relationships among variables, cluster similar observations, and reduce the dimensionality of the data.
• Network analysis: This involves analyzing the structure and dynamics of networks, such as social networks, communication networks, or ecological networks. Network analysis can be used to study the relationships and interactions among individuals, groups, or entities.
• Machine learning : This involves using algorithms and models to analyze and make predictions based on data. Machine learning can be used to identify patterns, classify observations, and make predictions based on complex data sets.

Basic Research Methodology

Basic research methodology refers to the approach, techniques, and procedures used to conduct basic research. The following are some common steps involved in basic research methodology:

• Formulating research questions or hypotheses : This involves identifying the research problem and formulating specific questions or hypotheses that can guide the research.
• Reviewing the literature: This involves reviewing and synthesizing existing research on the topic of interest to identify gaps, controversies, and areas for further investigation.
• Designing the study: This involves designing a study that is appropriate for the research question or hypothesis. The study design can involve experiments, observations, surveys, case studies, or other methods.
• Collecting data: This involves collecting data using appropriate methods and instruments, such as observation, surveys, experiments, or interviews.
• Analyzing data: This involves analyzing the collected data using appropriate methods, such as descriptive or inferential statistics, qualitative analysis, or content analysis.
• Interpreting results : This involves interpreting the results of the data analysis in light of the research question or hypothesis and the existing literature.
• Drawing conclusions: This involves drawing conclusions based on the interpretation of the results and assessing their implications for the research question or hypothesis.
• Communicating findings : This involves communicating the research findings in the form of research reports, journal articles, conference presentations, or other forms of dissemination.

Applications of Basic Research

Some applications of basic research include:

• Medical breakthroughs : Basic research in fields such as biology, chemistry, and physics has led to important medical breakthroughs, including the discovery of antibiotics, vaccines, and new drugs.
• Technology advancements: Basic research in fields such as computer science, physics, and engineering has led to advancements in technology, such as the development of the internet, smartphones, and other electronic devices.
• Environmental solutions: Basic research in fields such as ecology, geology, and meteorology has led to the development of solutions to environmental problems, such as climate change, air pollution, and water contamination.
• Economic growth: Basic research can stimulate economic growth by creating new industries and markets based on scientific discoveries and technological advancements.
• National security: Basic research in fields such as physics, chemistry, and biology has led to the development of new technologies for national security, including encryption, radar, and stealth technology.

Examples of Basic Research

Here are some examples of basic research:

• Astronomy : Astronomers conduct basic research to understand the fundamental principles that govern the universe, such as the laws of gravity, the behavior of stars and galaxies, and the origins of the universe.
• Genetics : Geneticists conduct basic research to understand the genetic basis of various traits, diseases, and disorders. This research can lead to the development of new treatments and therapies for genetic diseases.
• Physics : Physicists conduct basic research to understand the fundamental principles of matter and energy, such as quantum mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. This research can lead to new technologies and advancements in fields such as medicine and engineering.
• Neuroscience: Neuroscientists conduct basic research to understand the structure and function of the brain, including how it processes information and controls behavior. This research can lead to new treatments and therapies for neurological disorders and brain injuries.
• Mathematics : Mathematicians conduct basic research to develop and explore new mathematical theories, such as number theory, topology, and geometry. This research can lead to new applications in fields such as computer science, physics, and engineering.
• Chemistry : Chemists conduct basic research to understand the fundamental properties of matter and how it interacts with other substances. This research can lead to the development of new materials, drugs, and technologies.

Purpose of Basic Research

The purpose of basic research, also known as fundamental or pure research, is to expand knowledge in a particular field or discipline without any specific practical application in mind. The primary goal of basic research is to advance our understanding of the natural world and to uncover fundamental principles and relationships that underlie complex phenomena.

Basic research is often exploratory in nature, with researchers seeking to answer fundamental questions about how the world works. The research may involve conducting experiments, collecting and analyzing data, or developing new theories and hypotheses. Basic research often requires a high degree of creativity, innovation, and intellectual curiosity, as well as a willingness to take risks and pursue unconventional lines of inquiry.

Although basic research is not conducted with a specific practical outcome in mind, it can lead to significant practical applications in various fields. Many of the major scientific discoveries and technological advancements of the past century have been rooted in basic research, from the discovery of antibiotics to the development of the internet.

In summary, the purpose of basic research is to expand knowledge and understanding in a particular field or discipline, with the goal of uncovering fundamental principles and relationships that can help us better understand the natural world. While the practical applications of basic research may not always be immediately apparent, it has led to significant scientific and technological advancements that have benefited society in numerous ways.

When to use Basic Research

Basic research is generally conducted when scientists and researchers are seeking to expand knowledge and understanding in a particular field or discipline. It is particularly useful when there are gaps in our understanding of fundamental principles and relationships that underlie complex phenomena. Here are some situations where basic research might be particularly useful:

• Exploring new fields: Basic research can be particularly valuable when researchers are exploring new fields or areas of inquiry where little is known. By conducting basic research, scientists can establish a foundation of knowledge that can be built upon in future studies.
• Testing new theories: Basic research can be useful when researchers are testing new theories or hypotheses that have not been tested before. This can help scientists to gain a better understanding of how the world works and to identify areas where further research is needed.
• Developing new technologies : Basic research can be important for developing new technologies and innovations. By conducting basic research, scientists can uncover new materials, properties, and relationships that can be used to develop new products or technologies.
• Investigating complex phenomena : Basic research can be particularly valuable when investigating complex phenomena that are not yet well understood. By conducting basic research, scientists can gain a better understanding of the underlying principles and relationships that govern complex systems.
• Advancing scientific knowledge: Basic research is important for advancing scientific knowledge in general. By conducting basic research, scientists can uncover new principles and relationships that can be applied across multiple fields of study.

Characteristics of Basic Research

Here are some of the main characteristics of basic research:

• Focus on fundamental knowledge : Basic research is focused on expanding our understanding of the natural world and uncovering fundamental principles and relationships that underlie complex phenomena. The primary goal of basic research is to advance knowledge without any specific practical application in mind.
• Exploratory in nature: Basic research is often exploratory in nature, with researchers seeking to answer fundamental questions about how the world works. The research may involve conducting experiments, collecting and analyzing data, or developing new theories and hypotheses.
• Long-term focus: Basic research is often focused on long-term outcomes rather than immediate practical applications. The insights and discoveries generated by basic research may take years or even decades to translate into practical applications.
• High degree of creativity and innovation : Basic research often requires a high degree of creativity, innovation, and intellectual curiosity. Researchers must be willing to take risks and pursue unconventional lines of inquiry.
• Emphasis on scientific rigor: Basic research is conducted using the scientific method, which emphasizes the importance of rigorous experimental design, data collection and analysis, and peer review.
• Interdisciplinary: Basic research is often interdisciplinary, drawing on multiple fields of study to address complex research questions. Basic research can be conducted in fields ranging from physics and chemistry to biology and psychology.
• Open-ended : Basic research is open-ended, meaning that it does not have a specific end goal in mind. Researchers may follow unexpected paths or uncover new lines of inquiry that they had not anticipated.

Advantages of Basic Research

Here are some of the main advantages of basic research:

• Advancing scientific knowledge: Basic research is essential for expanding our understanding of the natural world and uncovering fundamental principles and relationships that underlie complex phenomena. This knowledge can be applied across multiple fields of study and can lead to significant scientific and technological advancements.
• Fostering innovation: Basic research often requires a high degree of creativity, innovation, and intellectual curiosity. By encouraging scientists to pursue unconventional lines of inquiry and take risks, basic research can lead to breakthrough discoveries and innovations.
• Stimulating economic growth : Basic research can lead to the development of new technologies and products that can stimulate economic growth and create new industries. Many of the major scientific and technological advancements of the past century have been rooted in basic research.
• Improving health and well-being: Basic research can lead to the development of new drugs, therapies, and medical treatments that can improve health and well-being. For example, many of the major advances in medical science, such as the development of antibiotics and vaccines, were rooted in basic research.
• Training the next generation of scientists : Basic research is essential for training the next generation of scientists and researchers. By providing opportunities for young scientists to engage in research and gain hands-on experience, basic research helps to develop the skills and expertise needed to advance scientific knowledge in the future.
• Encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration : Basic research often requires collaboration between scientists from different fields of study. By fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, basic research can lead to new insights and discoveries that would not be possible through single-discipline research alone.

Limitations of Basic Research

Here are some of the main limitations of basic research:

• Lack of immediate practical applications : Basic research is often focused on long-term outcomes rather than immediate practical applications. The insights and discoveries generated by basic research may take years or even decades to translate into practical applications.
• High cost and time requirements: Basic research can be expensive and time-consuming, as it often requires sophisticated equipment, specialized facilities, and large research teams. Funding for basic research can be limited, making it difficult to sustain long-term projects.
• Ethical concerns : Basic research may involve working with animal models or human subjects, raising ethical concerns around the use of animals or the safety and well-being of human participants.
• Uncertainty around outcomes: Basic research is often open-ended, meaning that it does not have a specific end goal in mind. This uncertainty can make it difficult to justify funding for basic research, as it is difficult to predict what outcomes the research will produce.
• Difficulty in communicating results : Basic research can produce complex and technical findings that may be difficult to communicate to the general public or policymakers. This can make it challenging to generate public support for basic research or to translate basic research findings into policy or practical applications.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Survey Research – Types, Methods, Examples

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Basic Research in Psychology

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Basic research—also known as fundamental or pure research—refers to study and research meant to increase our scientific knowledge base. This type of research is often purely theoretical, with the intent of increasing our understanding of certain phenomena or behavior. In contrast with applied research, basic research doesn't seek to solve or treat these problems.

Basic Research Examples

Basic research in psychology might explore:

• Whether stress levels influence how often students engage in academic cheating
• How caffeine consumption affects the brain
• Whether men or women are more likely to be diagnosed with depression
• How attachment styles among children of divorced parents compare to those raised by married parents

In all of these examples, the goal is merely to increase knowledge on a topic, not to come up with a practical solution to a problem.

The Link Between Basic and Applied Research

As Stanovich (2007) noted, many practical solutions to real-world problems have emerged directly from basic research. For this reason, the distinction between basic research and applied research is often simply a matter of time. As social psychologist Kurt Lewin once observed, "There is nothing so practical as a good theory."

For example, researchers might conduct basic research on how stress levels impact students academically, emotionally, and socially. The results of these theoretical explorations might lead to further studies designed to solve specific problems. Researchers might initially observe that students with high stress levels are more prone to dropping out of college before graduating. These first studies are examples of basic research designed to learn more about the topic.

As a result, scientists might then design research to determine what interventions might best lower these stress levels. Such studies would be examples of applied research. The purpose of applied research is specifically focused on solving a real problem that exists in the world. Thanks to the foundations established by basic research, psychologists can then design interventions that will help students effectively manage their stress levels , with the hopes of improving college retention rates.

Why Basic Research Is Important

The possible applications of basic research might not be obvious right away. During the earliest phases of basic research, scientists might not even be able to see how the information gleaned from theoretical research might ever apply to real-world problems. However, this foundational knowledge is essential. By learning as much as possible about a topic, researchers are able to gather what they need to know about an issue to fully understand the impact it may have.

"For example, early neuroscientists conducted basic research studies to understand how neurons function. The applications of this knowledge were not clear until much later when neuroscientists better understood how this neural functioning affected behavior," explained author Dawn M. McBride in her text The Process of Research in Psychology . "The understanding of the basic knowledge of neural functioning became useful in helping individuals with disorders long after this research had been completed."

Basic Research Methods

Basic research relies on many types of investigatory tools. These include observation, case studies, experiments, focus groups, surveys, interviews—anything that increases the scope of knowledge on the topic at hand.

Frequently Asked Questions

Psychologists interested in social behavior often undertake basic research. Social/community psychologists engaging in basic research are not trying to solve particular problems; rather, they want to learn more about why humans act the way they do.

Basic research is an effort to expand the scope of knowledge on a topic. Applied research uses such knowledge to solve specific problems.

An effective basic research problem statement outlines the importance of the topic; the study's significance and methods; what the research is investigating; how the results will be reported; and what the research will probably require.

Basic research might investigate, for example, the relationship between academic stress levels and cheating; how caffeine affects the brain; depression incidence in men vs. women; or attachment styles among children of divorced and married parents.

By learning as much as possible about a topic, researchers can come to fully understand the impact it may have. This knowledge can then become the basis of applied research to solve a particular problem within the topic area.

Stanovich KE.  How to Think Straight About Psychology . 8th edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon; 2007.

McCain KW. “Nothing as practical as a good theory” Does Lewin's Maxim still have salience in the applied social sciences? Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology . 2015;52(1):1-4. doi:10.1002/pra2.2015.145052010077

McBride DM. The Process of Research in Psychology . 3rd edition . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2015.

Committee on Department of Defense Basic Research. APPENDIX D: Definitions of basic, applied, and fundamental research . In: Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research. Washington, D.C.: The National Academic Press; 2005.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research Research Tools and Apps

Basic Research: What it is with examples

In building knowledge, there are many stages and methodologies to generate insights that contribute to its understanding and advancement; basic research and applied research are usually the most effective on this path.

Understanding research allows us to understand all the properties of a specific science or phenomenon at a fundamental level. Some examples are branches such as sociology, humanities, and other scientific fields; below, we will tell you everything you need to know about this type of research and its possible applications.

What is Basic Research?

Basic Research is a type of research used in the scientific field to understand and extend our knowledge about a specific phenomenon or field. It is also accepted as pure investigation or fundamental research .

This type of research contributes to the intellectual body of knowledge. Basic research is concerned with the generalization of a theory in a branch of knowledge; its purpose is usually to generate data that confirm or refute the initial thesis of the study.

It can also be called foundational research; many things get built on this foundation, and more practical applications are made.

Basic Research vs. Applied Research

Basic Research finds its counterpart and complement in applied research. They are two handy research methods when generating and giving a utility to the generated data. There are very marked differences, and understanding them will allow you to understand the path followed to create new knowledge.

The most important difference between basic research and applied research lies in the objective of each. It seeks to expand the information and understanding of the object of study, while applied research aims to provide a solution to the problem studied.

The relationship between these two types of research is usually very close since the methodologies used are often quite similar; the significant change is found in the initial and final point of the investigation.

Basic Research Examples

There can be many examples of basic research; here are some of them:

• A study of how stress affects labor productivity.
• Studying the best factors of pricing strategies.
• Understand the client’s level of satisfaction before certain interactions with the company providing solutions.
• The understanding of the leadership style of a particular company.

Advantages & Disadvantages

Basic research is critical for expanding the pool of knowledge in any discipline. The introductory course usually does not have a strict period, and the researcher’s concern commonly guides them. The conclusion of the fundamental course is generally applicable in a wide range of cases and plots.

At the same time, the basic study has disadvantages as well. The findings of this type of study have limited or no constructive conclusions. In another sense, fundamental studies do not resolve complex and definite business problems, but it does help you understand them better.

Taking actions and decisions based on the results of this type of research will increase the impact these insights may have on the problem studied if that is the purpose.

LEARN ABOUT: Theoretical Research

How to do basic research?

This process follows the same steps as a standard research methodology. The most crucial point is to define a thesis or theory that involves a perfectly defined case study; this can be a phenomenon or a research problem observed in a particular place.

There are many types of research, such as longitudinal studies , observational research , and exploratory studies. So the first thing you should do is determine if you can obtain the desired result with research or if it is better to opt for another type of research.

Once you have determined your research methodology, the data collection process begins, also depending on your type of study; sometimes, you can collect the data passively through observation or experimentation. On other occasions, intervene directly and collect quantitative information with tools such as surveys.

Platforms like QuestionPro will help you have a wide range of functions and tools to carry out your research; its survey software has helped students and professionals obtain all the information necessary to generate high-value insights.

In addition, it has a data analysis suite with which you can analyze all this information using all kinds of reports for a more straightforward interpretation of the final results.

QuestionPro is much more than survey software ; we have a solution for each specific problem and industry. We also offer data management platforms such as our research data repository called Insights Hub.

MORE LIKE THIS

Employee Engagement App: Top 11 For Workforce Improvement 

Apr 10, 2024

Top 15 Employee Evaluation Software to Enhance Performance

Event Feedback Software: Top 11 Best in 2024

Apr 9, 2024

Top 10 Free Market Research Tools to Boost Your Business

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

What is Basic Research?

Introduction

What is the meaning of basic research, examples of basic research, how do i perform basic research.

Basic science research is an essential pillar of scientific knowledge, because it extends understanding, provides new insights, and contributes to the advancement of science and fundamental knowledge across disciplines. In contrast, applied research aims for the discovery of practical solutions, which can involve using a technology or innovation that stems from existing knowledge. Basic science research potentially allows for generating ideas on which applied science can build novel inquiry and useful applications.

The process for conducting basic research is essentially the same as in an applied research orientation, but a better understanding of the distinction may prove increasingly important when crafting your research inquiry. In this article, we'll detail the characteristics and importance of basic research.

One of the key distinctions in science is the divide between basic and applied research . Applied research is directly associated with practical applications such as:

• career development
• program evaluation
• policy reform
• community action

In inquiries regarding each of these applications, researchers identify a specific problem to be solved and design a study intentionally aimed at developing solutions to that problem. Basic research is less concerned about specific problems and more focused on the nature of understanding.

Characteristics of basic research

Research that advances understanding of knowledge has distinguishing characteristics and important considerations.

• Focus on theoretical development . Rather than focus on practical applications, scholars in basic science research are more interested in ordering data and understanding in a scientific manner. This means expanding the consensus understanding of theory and the proposal of new theoretical frameworks that ultimately further research.
• Exploratory research questions . Basic research tends to look at areas where there is insufficient theoretical coherence to empirically understand phenomena. In other words, basic research often employs research questions that seek greater definition of knowledge.
• Funding for basic science . The nature of the support available for research depends on whether the science is basic or applied . Government agencies, national institutes, and private organizations all have different objectives, making some more appropriate for basic research than others.
• Writing for research dissemination . Academic journals exist on a continuum between theoretical and practical orientations. Journals that are more interested in theoretical and methodological discussions are more appropriate for basic research than are journals that look for more practical implications arising from research.

The brief survey of these characteristics should guide researchers about how they should approach research design in terms of feasibility, methods, and execution. This discussion shouldn't preclude you from pursuing basic research if it is more appropriate to your research inquiry. Instead, it should inform you of the opportunities, advantages, and challenges of basic research.

Importance of basic research

Fundamental research may seem aimless and unfocused if it doesn't yield any direct practical implications. However, its contribution to scholarly discussion cannot be overstated as it guides the development of theories and facilitates critical discussion about what applied studies to pursue next.

Basic science has guided fields such as microbiology, engineering, and chemistry. Scientists ultimately use its findings to develop new methods in treating disease and innovating on new technology.

Its contribution to the social sciences through observation and longitudinal study is also immeasurable. While basic research is often a precursor to more applied science, the theories it generates spur further study that ultimately leads to professional development programs and policy reform in social institutions.

Shape your data, shape your research with ATLAS.ti

Dive into a transformative analysis experience with a free trial of our powerful data analysis software.

Different fields rely on both applied and basic science for generating new knowledge. While applied research looks to yield direct benefits through real-world applications, fundamental research provides the necessary theoretical foundation for practical research in various fields.

Basic research example in education

Basic research in schooling contexts focuses on understanding the nature of teaching and learning or the processes within educational environments before any focused investigation can be designed, let alone conducted. Basic research is necessary in this case because of the various situated differences across learners who come from different cultures and backgrounds.

Basic research in education looks at various inquiries such as how teachers and students interact with each other and how alternative assessments can create positive learning outcomes. Ultimately, this may lead to applied research that can facilitate the creation of teacher education and professional development programs.

Basic research example in psychology

Psychology is a field that is under constant development. Basic research is essential to developing theories related to human behavior and mental processes. The subfield of cognition is a significant benefactor of basic research as it relies on novel theoretical frameworks relating to memory and learning.

Basic research example in health

A great deal of health research that reaches public consciousness is undoubtedly applied research. The development of vaccines and other medicine to combat the COVID-19 pandemic was one such line of inquiry that addressed a practical need.

That said, scientists will undoubtedly credit basic research as a precursor to medical breakthroughs in applied science research. The knowledge gained through basic research laid the foundation for genomic sequencing of the COVID-19 virus, while experiments on living systems created knowledge about how to safely vaccinate the human body.

The National Institute of Health sponsors such basic research and research in other areas such as human DNA, while the National Science Foundation funds basic research on topics such as gender stereotypes and stress levels.

At its core, all scientific inquiry seeks to identify causal factors, relationships, and distinguishing characteristics among concepts and phenomena. As a result, the process is essentially the same for basic or applied science. Nonetheless, it is worth reviewing the process.

• Research design . Identify gaps in existing research that novel inquiry can address. A rigorous literature review can help identify theoretical or methodological gaps that a new study with an exploratory research question can address.
• Data collection . Exploratory research questions tend to prioritize data collection methods such as interviews , focus groups , and observations . Basic research, as a result, casts a wide net for any and all potential data that can facilitate generation of theoretical developments.
• Data analysis . At this stage, the goal is to organize and view your data in such a way that facilitates the identification of key insights. Analysis in basic research serves the dual purpose of filtering data through existing theoretical frameworks and generating new theory.
• Research dissemination . Once you determine your findings, you will want to present your insights in an empirical and rigorous manner. Visualizing data in your papers and presentations is useful for pointing out the most relevant data and analysis in your study.

Whatever your research, make it happen with ATLAS.ti

Turn data into knowledge and innovation with our powerful analysis tools. Download a free trial today.

• What is Pure or Basic Research? + [Examples & Method]

Sometimes, research may be aimed at expanding a field of knowledge or improving the understanding of a natural phenomenon. This type of research is known as a basic, pure or fundamental research, and it is a major means of generating new ideas, principles and theories. 

In many cases, basic research fuels scientific innovations and development because it is driven by the need to unravel the unknown. In this article, we will define what basic research is, its data collection methods and how it differs from other approaches to research. 

What is Basic Research?

Basic research is a type of research approach that is aimed at gaining a better understanding of a subject, phenomenon or basic law of nature. This type of research is primarily focused on the advancement of knowledge rather than solving a specific problem. 

Basic research is also referred to as pure research or fundamental research. The concept of basic research emerged between the late 19th century and early 20th century in an attempt to bridge the gaps existing in the societal utility of science. 

Typically, basic research can be exploratory , descriptive or explanatory; although in many cases, it is explanatory in nature. The primary aim of this research approach is to gather information in order to improve one’s understanding, and this information can then be useful in proffering solutions to a problem. 

Examples of Basic Research 

Basic research can be carried out in different fields with the primary aim of expanding the frontier of knowledge and developing the scope of these fields of study. Examples of basic research can be seen in medicine, education, psychology, technology, to mention but a few.

Basic Research Example in Education  

In education, basic research is used to develop pedagogical theories that explain teaching and learning behaviours in the classroom. Examples of basic research in education include the following:

• How does the Language Acquisition Device work  on children?
• How does the human retentive memory work?
• How do teaching methods affect student’s concentration in class?

Basic Research Example in Science

Basic research advances scientific knowledge by helping researchers understand the function of newly discovered molecules and cells, strange phenomena, or little-understood processes. As with other fields, basic research is responsible for many scientific breakthroughs; even though the knowledge gained may not seem to yield immediate benefits. 

Examples of basic research in science include: 

• A research to determine the chemical composition of organic molecules.
• A research to discover the components of the human DNA.

Basic Research Example in Psychology  

In psychology, basic research helps individuals and organisations to gain insights and better understanding into different conditions. It is entirely theoretical and allows psychologists to understand certain behaviors better without providing  solutions to these behaviours or phenomena.  

Examples of basic research in psychology include: 

• Do stress levels make individuals more aggressive?
• To what extent does caffeine consumption affect classroom concentration?
• A research on behavioral differences between children raised by separated families and children raised by married parents.
• To what extent do gender stereotypes  trigger depression?

Basic Research Example in Health   

Basic research methods improve healthcare by providing different dimensions to the understanding and interpretation of healthcare issues. For example, it allows healthcare practitioners to gain more insight into the origin of diseases which can help to provide cures to chronic medical conditions. 

Many health researchers opine that many vaccines are developed based on an understanding of the causes of the disease such as in the case of the polio vaccine. Several medical breakthroughs have been attributed to the wealth of knowledge provided through basic research. 

Examples of basic research in health include: 

• An investigation into the symptoms of Coronavirus.
• An investigation into the causative factors of malaria
• An investigation into the secondary symptoms of high blood pressure.

Basic Research Method

 An interview is a common method of data collection in basic research that involves having a one-on-one interaction with an individual in order to gather relevant information about a phenomenon. Interview can be structured, unstructured or semi-structured depending on the research process and objectives.  

In a structured interview , the researcher asks a set of premeditated questions while in an unstructured interview, the researcher does not make use of a set of premeditated questions. Rather he or she depends on spontaneity and follow-up questioning in order to gather relevant information. 

On the other hand, a semi-structured interview is a type of interview that allows the researcher to deviate from  premeditated questions in order to gather more  information about the research subject. You can conduct structured interviews online by creating and administering a survey online on Formplus .

• Observation

Observation is a type of data-gathering method that involves paying close attention to a phenomenon for a specific period of time in order to gather relevant information about its behaviors. When carrying out basic research, the researcher may need to study the research subject for a stipulated period as it interacts with its natural environment. 

Observation can be structured or unstructured depending on its procedures and approach. In structured observation, the data collection is carried out using a predefined procedure and in line with a specific schedule while unstructured observation is not restricted to a predetermined procedure. 

An experiment is a type of quantitative data-gathering method that seeks to validate or refute a hypothesis and it can also be used to test existing theories. In this method of data collection , the researcher manipulates dependent and independent variables to achieve objective research outcomes. 

Typically, in an experiment, the independent variable is modified or changed in order to determine its effects on the dependent variables in the research context. This can be done using 3 major methods; controlled experiments , field experiments, and natural experiments 

• Questionnaire

A questionnaire is a data collection tool that is made up of a series of questions to which the research subjects provide answers. It is a cost-effective method of data gathering because it allows you to collect large samples of data from the members of the group simultaneously. 

You can create and administer your pure research questionnaire online using Formplus and you can also make use of paper questionnaires; although these are  easily susceptible to damage. [

Here is a step-by-step guide of how to create and administer questionnaires for basic research using Formplus: 

• Sign in to Formplus

In the Formplus builder, you can easily create different questionnaires for applied research by dragging and dropping preferred fields into your form. To access the Formplus builder, you will need to create an account on Formplus. 

Once you do this, sign in to your account and click on “Create Form ” to begin.

Edit Form Title

Click on the field provided to input your form title, for example, “Basic Research Questionnaire”.

Click on the edit button to edit the form.

i. Add Fields: Drag and drop preferred form fields into your form from  the Formplus builder   Inputs column. There are several field input options for questionnaires in the Formplus builder. 

ii. Edit fields

iii. Click on “Save”

iv. Preview form. 

Form Customization

With the form customization options in the form builder, you can easily change the look and feel of your form and make it more unique and personalized. Formplus allows you to change your form theme, add background images and even change the font according to your brand specifications. 

Multiple Sharing Options

Formplus offers multiple form sharing options which enables you to easily share your questionnaire with respondents. You can use the direct social media sharing buttons to share your form link to your  social media pages. 

In addition, Formplus has an option to convert form links to QR codes; you can personalize and display your form QR code on your website/banners for easy access. You also can send out survey forms as email invitations to your research subjects.  

• Data Reporting

 Data reporting is a type of data collection method where the researcher gathers relevant data and turns them in for further analysis in order to arrive at specific conclusions. The crux of this method depends, almost entirely, on the validity of the data collected. 

• Case Studies

A case study is a type of data collection method that involves the detailed examination of a specific subject matter in order to gather objective information about the features and behaviors of the research subject. This method of data gathering is primarily qualitative , although it can also be quantitative or numerical in nature.  

Case studies involve a detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions and their relationships. In carrying out a case study, the researcher must take extra care to identify the research questions, collect relevant data then evaluate and analyze the data in order to arrive at objective conclusions. 

Read More: Research Questions: Definition, Types +[Examples]

How is Basic Research Different from Applied Research? 

 Applied research is a type of research that is concerned with solving practical problems using scientific methods while basic research is a type of research that is concerned with the expansion of knowledge. 

Basic research generates new theories or improves on existing theories hence, it is theoretical in nature. On the other hand, applied research creates practical solutions to specific problems hence, it is practical in nature. 

 Basic research is knowledge-specific while applied research is solution-specific. 

• Research Purpose

The purpose of basic research is to improve on existing knowledge or to discover new knowledge while the purpose of applied research is to solve specific problems. 

The scope of basic research is universal while applied research is limited in nature. This means that while applied research addresses a specific problem and is limited to the problem which it addresses, basic research explores multiple dimensions of various fields. 

• Basic research is primarily explanatory while applied research is descriptive in nature .
• Basic research adopts an indirect approach to problem-solving while applied research adopts a direct approach to problem-solving.
• In basic research, generalizations are common while in applied research, specific problems are investigated without the aim of generalizations.

Read Also: What is Applied Research? +[Types, Examples & Methods]

Characteristics of Basic Research 

• Basic research is analytical in nature.
• It aims at theorizing concepts and not solving specific problems.
• It is primarily concerned with the expansion of knowledge and not with the applicability of the research outcomes.
• Basic research is explanatory in nature.
• Basic research is carried out without any primary focus on possible practical ends.
• It improves the general knowledge and understanding of different fields of study.

Importance of Basic Research

• Acquisition of New Knowledge: Basic research results in new knowledge. It is responsible for many research breakthroughs in different fields of study and it is often considered as the pacesetter in technological and innovative solutions.
• Basic research also enhances the understanding of different subject matters and provides multiple possible dimensions for interpretation of these subject matters.
• Findings of fundamental research are extremely useful in expanding the pool of knowledge in different disciplines.
• Basic research offers the foundation for applied research.

Disadvantages of Basic Research

• Findings from pure research have little or no immediate practical implications. However, these findings may be useful in providing solutions to different problems, in the long run.
• Fundamental research does not have strict deadlines.
• Basic research does not solve any specific problems.

Basic research is an important research method because it exposes researchers to varying dimensions within a field of study. This proves useful, not only for improving scholarship and the general knowledge-base, but for solving problems as is the concern of applied research. 

When carrying out basic research, the investigator adopts one or more qualitative and quantitative observation methods which includes case studies, experiments and observation. These data collection methods help the researcher to gather the most valid and relevant information for the research. 

In the case of using a survey or questionnaire for data collection , this can easily be done with the use of Formplus forms. Formplus allows you to create and administer different kinds of questionnaires, online and you can easily monitor and categ orise your form responses too. 

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• applied basic research differences
• basic research example
• basic-research-characteristics
• basic-research-method
• pure research
• pure research example
• busayo.longe

You may also like:

Selection Bias in Research: Types, Examples & Impact

In this article, we’ll discuss the effects of selection bias, how it works, its common effects and the best ways to minimize it.

What is Applied Research? + [Types, Examples & Method]

Simple guide on applied research; its types, examples, characteristics, methods, and advantages

21 Chrome Extensions for Academic Researchers in 2022

In this article, we will discuss a number of chrome extensions you can use to make your research process even seamless

Basic vs Applied Research: 15 Key Differences

Differences between basic and applied research in definition, advantages, methods, types and examples

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

What is basic research?

What is basic research, and is it important a new theme on sciencenordic..

This article is part of our Basic Research theme

Basic research is often described as research without any clear goals, or science to satisfy the curiosity of a lone scientist without anyone else even realising that it exists.

But this totally misses the mark, says Søren-Peter Olesen, the director of the Danish National Research Foundation Centre for Cardiac Arrhythmia at the University of Copenhagen.

The goal of basic research is “to collect information about how nature and people are put together. It’s not important that this knowledge can be used for anything concrete, the most important thing is that we improve our understanding,” he says.

   Basic Research

ScienceNordic takes you into the engine room of basic research to find out:

• What is it?
• Who does it?
• And how does it benefit us?

Read More: What is basic research?

In the coming weeks, ScienceNordic is running a special theme on basic research. We will try to cover questions like: what is the point of basic research, who pays for it, who does it, and how does it benefit society?

You can bookmark the basic research theme homepage to stay up to date with the new articles on basic research here at ScienceNordic.

Basic research expands our knowledge and leads to innovation

Basic research or “blue skies research” is conducted just as any other scientific research: scientists have a hypothesis and test it by designing experiments and making observations to develop theories that explain how the world around us works.

“It’s important for humanity to understand the world in which we live,” says Olesen.

Basic research seeks answers to fundamental questions and provides broad insights to many different scientific fields. Applied research, on the other hand, tends to have a much narrower focus within a specific field.

“Basic research is incredibly important because it lays the ground for major discoveries,” says Poul Nissen, a centre director at the Centre for Membrane Pumps in Cells and Disease (PUMPkin) at Aarhus University, Denmark.

“When we use social media and electronic gadgets, and when we develop medicine to treat diseases--this is all possible because someone was doing basic research on it twenty or forty years earlier,” he says.

“Today’s discoveries are built on investments made in previous decades to fund basic research into the unknown challenges of the future,” says Nissen.

Blurred boundaries between applied and basic researching

Public debate usually tries to draw clear distinctions between basic research and applied research, so that they appear as almost polar opposites.

Applied research appears to have specific goals: a vaccine, a new windmill, or a new battery—concrete inventions that can improve our daily lives and lead to new products in the marketplace.

It may seem obvious that scientists should start with a strategic goal for a results-orientated project that can benefit society. But the reality is very different. The two types of research are closely intertwined and in reality it’s difficult to draw a strict boundary between them.

Take Nissen’s research, for example.

His research centre studies how so-called ion-pumps work in animal and plant cells. This may at first sound like a rather narrow research field, but over the past nine years, their research has led to developments in the treatment of fungal infections following cases of pneumonia, cancer treatments, as well as advances in the understanding of migraine, muscle diseases, and the important sodium-potassium pump mechanism in cells.

Basic research is also applied research

Nissen’s results have led to several spin-off companies and other results-orientated projects.

“All good basic research ends with new perspectives that can also have practical applications,” says Nissen. “All basic research projects lead to further projects. So it has a big effect on people’s daily lives.”

In that sense, basic research is no different to applied research, he says. “It just has a longer term perspective.”

Basic research is not defined by what scientists study, but how they do it

So if a scientist discovers a new mechanism that can potentially fight malaria, or if a scientists find a correlation between certain genes and our birth weight or certain diseases, is this basic or applied research?

But that is the wrong way to think about it, according to Olesen. It is not what you study, but how you study it, that defines whether or not your research is considered basic or applied, he says.

“Basic research is not defined by the expedition in itself, but by the goals you have,” says Olesen.

In other words, if a scientist studies malaria to improve our understanding of the disease, then that is basic research. But when that understanding seeks out new treatments, it becomes applied.

Can you conduct basic research in any subject?

So are any topics off limits when it comes to basic research? What about football, for example?

“That would be great!” says Olesen.

“Football is something that you can approach from many different angles: psychology, sports medicine, and by studying game theory and other mathematical techniques. So it can be extremely beneficial,” he says.

Olesen studies heart medicine and lectures on extreme sport and the changes that occur in the body when we take part in sport.

“There’s a lot to do, and often the breakthroughs come from research fields that are a bit off the beaten track, like football.”

Amateur scientists can also do basic research

So if there are no limits for what can be studied, are there any limits for who can do it or can anyone get involved in basic research?

“A lot of research is done outside universities,” says Olesen. “In industry, of course, but also by amateurs--amateur archaeologists for example.”

Nissen agrees.

“Research is driven by many things. Partly technical developments that make new discoveries possible and partly a need to recognise something. Sometimes it’s just luck when you come across something unexpected. Even amateurs can discover things that no one else had thought of before,” he says.

-------------

Read the Danish version of this article on Videnskab.dk  

Translated by: Catherine Jex

External links

• Søren-Peter Olesen
• Poul Nissen

Related content

A boost for open access to research.

The Research Council of Norway is introducing a new funding scheme to promote publication in open access journals.

Arctic research on the rise

With an increased interest in the natural resources of the Arctic, geologists are increasingly drawn to research on the archipelago of Svalbard.

Excessive funding for popular research creates science bubble

Research grants are increasingly being awarded to the same few popular research fields. This results in homogenised projects that rarely deliver what they promise. The phenomenon is similar to real estate bubbles, argue two Danish philosophers.

Voicing concern that industry funding distorts academic research

Director of bioethics program urges researchers to look at how money from the industry influences their work.

Funding to defend industry, or defend Norway?

New EU regulations can force the Norwegian government to make a choice. Will it subsidise the defence industry to promote national security, or is economic stimulus the major aim? A researcher says we should go for the first option.

Women who have been in prison face a much higher risk of early death

"there are few who drink such large amounts of coffee." new study raises the alarm on energy drinks and sleep.

Is it possible to make healthy french fries?

Is nursing not for boys? Gender stereotypes in preschool surprise researchers

New report: grilled food is safe – as long as you don't burn the sausages, does social media content creation impact the professional identity of preventive health professionals.

The Covid-19 pandemic has unveiled the pervasive dangers of autocratic responses to crises

Embracing unity: how scandinavia responded to combat covid-19.

Did you know energy possibly speaks?

Understanding the language of energy flows can help us prevent energy blackouts due to climate change and cyber attacks

More people are seeking help for eating disorders - but we still don't understand the illnesses

New research center aims to shine light on how and why eating disorders develop

Basic vs. applied research: what’s the difference?

Last updated

27 February 2023

Reviewed by

Cathy Heath

Research can be used to learn new facts, create new products, and solve various problems. Yet, there are different ways to undertake research to meet a desired goal. 

The method you choose to conduct research will most likely be based on what question you want to answer, plus other factors that will help you accurately get the answer you need. 

Research falls into two main categories: basic research and applied research. Both types of research have distinct purposes and varied benefits. 

This guide will help you understand the differences and similarities between basic and applied research and how they're used. It also answers common questions about the two types of research, including:

Why is it called basic research?

What is more important, basic research or applied research?

What are examples of pure (basic) research and applied research?

Analyze basic and applied research

Dovetail streamlines analysis to help you uncover and share actionable insights

• What is basic research?

Basic research (sometimes called fundamental or pure) advances scientific knowledge to completely understand a subject, topic, or phenomenon. It's conducted to satisfy curiosity or develop a full body of knowledge on a specific subject.

Basic research is used to bring about a fundamental understanding of the world, different behaviors, and is the foundation of knowledge in the scientific disciplines. It is usually conducted based on developing and testing theories.

While there is no apparent commercial value to the discoveries that result from basic research, it is the foundation of research used for other projects like developing solutions to solve problems. 

Examples of basic research

Basic research has always been used to give humans a better understanding of all branches of science and knowledge. However, it's not specifically based on identifying new things about the universe.

Basic research has a wide range of uses, as shown in the following examples:

Investigation into how the universe began

A study searching for the causes of cancer

Understanding the components that make up human DNA

An examination into whether a vegetarian diet is healthier than one with meat

A study to learn more about which areas in the world get the most precipitation

Benefits of conducting basic research

Called basic research because it is performed without an immediate or obvious benefit, this type of research often leads to vital solutions in the future. While basic research isn't technically solution-driven, it develops the underlying knowledge used for additional learning and research. 

There are many benefits derived from basic research, including:

Gaining an understanding of living systems and the environment

Gathering information that can help society prepare for the future

Expanding knowledge that can lead to medical advances

Providing a foundation for applied research

• What is applied research?

Applied research studies particular circumstances to apply the information to real-life situations. It helps improve the human condition by finding practical solutions for existing problems.

Applied research builds off facts derived from basic research and other data to address challenges in all facets of life. Instead of exploring theories of the unknown, applied research requires researchers to use existing knowledge, facts, and discoveries to generate new knowledge. 

Solutions derived from applied research are used in situations ranging from medical treatments or product development to new laws or regulations.

Examples of applied research

Applied research is designed to solve practical problems that exist under current conditions. However, it's not only used for consumer-based products and decisions.

Applied research can be used in a variety of ways, as illustrated by the following examples:

The investigation of ways to improve agricultural crop production

A study to improve methods to market products for Gen Z consumers

Examination of how technology can t make car tires last longer

Exploration of how to cook healthy meals with a limited budget

A study on how to treat patients with insomnia

Benefits of using applied research

Although applied research expands upon a foundation of existing knowledge, it also brings about new ideas. Applied research provides many benefits in various circumstances, including:

Designing new products and services

Creating new objectives

Providing unbiased data through the testing of verifiable evidence

• Basic research vs. applied research: the differences

Both basic and applied research are tactics for discovering specific information. However, they differ significantly in the way research is conducted and the objectives they achieve. 

Some of the most notable differences between basic and applied research include the following:

Research outcomes: curiosity-driven vs. solution-driven

Basic research is generally conducted to learn more about a specific subject. It is usually self-initiated to gain knowledge to satisfy curiosity or confirm a theory. 

Conversely, applied knowledge is directed toward finding a solution to a specific problem. It is often conducted to assist a client in improving products, services, or issues.

Research scope: universal scope vs. specific scope

Basic research uses a broad scope to apply various concepts to gain more knowledge. Research methods may include studying different subjects to add more information that connects evidence points in a greater body of data.

Meanwhile, applied research depends on a specific or narrow scope to gather specific evidence to address a certain problem.

Research approaches: expanding existing knowledge vs. finding new knowledge

Researchers conduct basic research to fill in gaps between existing information points. Basic knowledge is an expansion of existing knowledge to gain a deeper understanding. It is often based on how, what, or why something is the way it is. Although applied research may be based on information derived from basic research, it's not designed to expand the knowledge. Instead, the research is conducted to find new knowledge, usually in the form of a solution.

Research commercialization: Informational vs. commercial gain

The main basis of product development is to solve a problem for consumers.

Basic research might lead to solutions and commercial products in the future to help with this. Since applied research is used to develop solutions, it's often used for commercial gain.

Theory formulation: theoretical vs. practical nature

Basic research is usually based on a theory about a specific subject. Researchers may develop a theory that grows and changes as more information is discovered during the research process. Conversely, applied research is practical in nature since the goal is to solve a specific problem.

• Are there similarities between applied and basic research?

While some obvious differences exist, applied and basic research methods have similarities. For example, researchers may use the same methods to collect data (like interviews, surveys , and focus groups ) for both types of research. 

Both types of research require researchers to use inductive and deductive reasoning to develop and prove hypotheses . The two types of research frequently intersect when basic research serves as the foundation for applied research.

While applied research is solution-based, basic research is equally important because it yields information used to develop solutions to many types of problems. 

• Methods used in basic research and applied research

While basic and applied research have different approaches and goals, they require researchers or scientists to gather data. Basic and applied research makes use of many of the same methods to gather and study information, including the following:

Observations: Studying research subjects for an extended time allows researchers to gather information about how subjects behave under different conditions.

Interviews: Surveys and one-to-one discussions help researchers gain information from other subjects and validate data.

Experiments: Researchers conduct experiments to prove or disprove certain hypotheses based on information that has been gathered.

Questionnaires: A series of questions related to the research context helps researchers gather quantitative information applicable to both basic and applied research.

• How do you determine when to use basic research vs. applied research?

Basic and applied research are both helpful in obtaining knowledge. However, they aren't usually used in the same settings or under the same circumstances. 

When you're trying to determine which type of research to use for a particular project, it's essential to consider your product goals. Basic research seeks answers to universal, theoretical questions. While it works to uncover specific knowledge, it's generally not used to develop a solution. Conversely, applied research discovers answers to specific questions. It should be used to find out new knowledge to solve a problem.

• Bottom line

Both basic and applied research are methods used to gather information and analyze facts that help build knowledge around a subject. However, basic research is used to gain understanding and satisfy curiosity, while applied research is used to solve specific problems. Both types of research depend on gathering information to prove a hypothesis or create a product, service, or valuable process. 

By learning more about the similarities and differences between basic and applied research, you'll be prepared to gather and use data efficiently to meet your needs.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

Basic Research: Definition, Examples

Basic research focuses on the search for truth or the development of theory. Because of this property, basic research is fundamental. Researchers with their fundamental background knowledge “design studies that can test, refine, modify, or develop theories.”

Meaning and Definition of Basic Research

Generally, these researchers are affiliated with an academic institution and perform this research as part of their graduate or doctoral studies. Gathering knowledge for knowledge’s sake is the sole purpose of basic research .

Basic research is also called pure research. Basic research is driven by a scientist’s curiosity or interest in a scientific question.

The main motivation in basic research is to expand man’s knowledge, not to create or invent something. There is no obvious commercial value to the discoveries that result from basic research.

The term ‘basic’ indicates that, through theory generation, basic research provides the foundation for applied research . This research approach is essential for nourishing the expansion of knowledge.

It deals with questions that are intellectually interesting and challenging to the investigator. It focuses on refuting or supporting theories that operate in a changing society.

Basic research generates new ideas, principles, and theories, which may not be of immediate practical utility, though such research lays the foundations of modern progress and development in many fields.

Basic research rarely helps practitioners directly with everyday concerns but can stimulate new ways of thinking about our daily lives.

Basic researchers are more detached and academic in their approach and tend to have motives.

For example, an anthropologist may research to try and understand the physical properties, symbolic meanings, and practical qualities of things.

Such research contributes to understanding broad issues of interest to many social sciences-issues of self, family, and material culture .

Having said so, we come up with the following definition of basic research:

When the solution to the research problem has no apparent applications to any existing practical problem but serves only the scholarly interests of a community of a researcher, the research is basic.

Most scientists believe that a fundamental understanding of all branches of science is needed for progress to take place.

In other words, basic research lays the foundation for the following applied research . If basic work is done first, then this research often results from applied spin-offs.

A person wishing to do basic research in any specialized area must have studied the concepts and assumptions of that specialization enough to know what has been done in the past and what remains to be done.

For example, basic research is necessary for the health sector to generate new knowledge and technology to deal with major unsolved health problems.

Here are a few examples of questions asked in pure research:

• How did the universe begin?
• What are protons, neutrons, and electrons composed of?
• How do slime molds reproduce?
• How do the Neo-Malthusians view the Malthusian theory?
• What is the specific genetic code of the fruit fly?
• What is the relevance of the dividend theories in the capital market?

As there is no guarantee of short-term practical gain, researchers find it difficult to obtain funding for basic research.

Examples of Basic Research

The author investigated the smoothness of the solution of the degenerate Hamilton-Bellman (HJB) equation associated with a linear-quadratic regulator control.

The author established the existence of a classical solution of the degenerate HJB equation associated with this problem by the technique of viscosity solutions and hence derived an optimal control from the optimality conditions in the HJB equation.

Hasan (2009) gave a solution to linear programming problems through computer algebra. He developed a computer technique for solving such linear fractional programming problems in his paper.

At the outset, he determined all basic feasible solutions to the constraints, which are a system of linear equations.

The author then computed and compared the objective function values and obtained the optimal objective function value and optimal solutions. The method was then illustrated with a few numerical examples.

What is the primary focus of basic research?

Basic research primarily focuses on the search for truth or the development of theory. It is fundamental in nature and aims to design studies that test, refine, modify, or develop theories.

How does basic research differ from applied research in terms of its purpose?

The sole purpose of basic research is to gather knowledge for knowledge’s sake. It is driven by a scientist’s curiosity or interest in a scientific question without any immediate commercial value to the discoveries, whereas applied research has practical applications.

What is the significance of the term “basic” in basic research?

The term “basic” indicates that the research provides the foundation for applied research through theory generation. It lays the groundwork for modern progress and development in various fields.

Why might researchers face challenges in obtaining funding for basic research?

Since there is no guarantee of short-term practical gain from basic research, researchers often find it difficult to secure funding for such endeavors.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Research Council (US) Committee to Update Science, Medicine, and Animals. Science, Medicine, and Animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004.

Science, Medicine, and Animals.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

The Concept of Basic Research

A nimal research is also important in another type of research, called basic research. Basic research experiments are performed to further scientific knowledge without an obvious or immediate benefit. The goal of basic research is to understand the function of newly discovered molecules and cells, strange phenomena, or little-understood processes. In spite of the fact that there may be no obvious value when the experiments are performed, many times this new knowledge leads to breakthrough methods and treatments years or decades later. For example, chemists developed a tool called a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) machine to determine the structure of chemicals. When it was developed, it had no obvious applications in medicine; however, scientists eventually realized that the NMR machine could be hooked up to a computer to make a magnetic resonance imagery (MRI) machine. The MRI machine takes pictures of the bone and internal tissues of the body without the use of radioactivity. Other examples of basic research that have led to important advances in medicine are the discovery of DNA (leading to cancer treatments) and neurotransmitters (leading to antidepressants and antiseizure medications). However, there are many other instances where basic research, some of which has been done on animals, has not yet resulted in any practical benefit to humans or animals.

NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance)—a machine that measures the vibration of atoms exposed to magnetic fields. Scientists use this machine to study the physical, chemical, and biological properties of matter.

MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)—a machine that produces pictures of the bone and internal tissues of the body.

• Cite this Page National Research Council (US) Committee to Update Science, Medicine, and Animals. Science, Medicine, and Animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2004. The Concept of Basic Research.
• PDF version of this title (3.9M)

Other titles in this collection

• The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health

Recent Activity

• The Concept of Basic Research - Science, Medicine, and Animals The Concept of Basic Research - Science, Medicine, and Animals

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Science in School

What is it good for basic versus applied research teach article.

Author(s): Martin McHugh, Marcus Baumann, Sarah Hayes, F. Jerry Reen, Laurie Ryan, Davide Tiana, Jessica Whelan

Basic research is often misunderstood by the public and misconstrued by the media. Try this role play to learn how research is funded and how basic research advances and protects society.

In 2019, an international research group published a paper examining the effect of the song Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites by Skrillex on the breeding behaviours of mosquitos. [ 1 ]  The paper became a viral news story, with many media outlets using the ‘obscure’ research story to generate clicks. However, the research concluded that, when mosquitos were exposed to the song, they bit less and refrained from mating. The paper generated equal amounts of praise and criticism but highlights the potential of basic research and creative thinking in science. Indeed, the historical problem with basic research is the lack of immediate commercial objectives. To non-scientists, basic research can seem like a waste of money, whereas applied research, designed to solve practical problems with obvious scientific and societal benefits, seems like a better use of resources.

The following activity will bring the debate into the classroom and allow students to explore the pros and cons of basic and applied research. Using an argumentation framework, students will discuss the merits of a variety of research projects, with updates to show how some of them later turned out to be important for vaccine development for COVID-19.

What kinds of research should be funded?

In this activity, students will be divided into groups of funders and scientists. Using the materials provided, the scientists will pitch their research proposals to the funders, who will have €100 000 at their disposal. The activity will also provide cues to promote argumentation among students to develop critical thinking, reasoning, communication, and scientific literacy skills. [ 2 ]

Learning objectives and context

After the activity, students should understand

• how scientific research is funded and that this involves difficult decisions;
• the difference between basic and applied research;
• how applied research relies on basic research findings, and that it is difficult to predict what might become useful.

To set the scene, students should be asked who they think funds scientific research. Students will generate multiple answers, from the government to universities and industry. Truthfully, funding can come from a variety of sources and can be public, private, national, or international.

The next question is how do funding bodies select what research should be funded. Scientific research is often broadly divided into two types: basic research (also called fundamental research) and applied research.

• Basic research is about pushing the boundaries of our understanding and generating new knowledge. An example is researching how a physiological process works at the molecular level.
• Applied research involves applying existing knowledge to create solutions to specific problems. An example is developing a treatment for a disease.

However, many research projects have elements of both basic and applied research. Research scientists from around the world must compete and push the merits of their work to get funding.

The following role-play activity will put students in the shoes of both the funding bodies and scientists. In groups, students will be asked to pitch their project proposal to the funders, who will ultimately decide how to allocate €100 000 to a variety of projects.

A key element of this lesson is to encourage debate and argumentation. Students acting as scientists should try to convince funders with their words. They should be encouraged to make claims, rebuttals, and back up their statements with data, if possible. Each scientist will have an individual text that will give them the information to argue effectively. To support debate, funders are given a list of key questions, along with more probing questions. This activity can also be extended over multiple lessons to allow students time to debate.

Funder information sheet

Project proposal cards

Discussion cards

• For this role-play activity, divide students into groups of five or six. Each group requires four scientists and at least one funder.
• Hand out the project proposal cards to the four scientists in each group.There are four project proposals and each scientist should get a different one. One of these proposals is highly applied, while the others are more basic. All funders receive the same information sheet and can allocate €100 000. If there are two funders in a single group, then they must come to a consensus.
• Give students 10 minutes to read over their documents. Funders need to be aware of the key questions (on the information sheet) they can use to assess the proposals. Scientists need to be aware of the key arguments they need to make to receive funding (on the proposal cards).
• Each scientist then gets 2 minutes uninterrupted to make their ‘pitch’ for funding. Once complete, funders need to ask key questions and all scientists are allowed argue their positions against each other. This should take around 15 minutes.
• At the end of the activity, funders are asked to fill in the funding-allocation table at the bottom of their information sheet. This is to be kept private.
• In turn, ask the funders from each group to the front of the class. The table on their sheets can be copied onto the board and funders can fill this out. Once complete, they need to give a brief justification to the class for their decision.
• Throughout this process, ask the students if they are seeing any patterns emerging in the funding between groups.
• Ask whether the students think each project is more basic or applied.
• Next, hand out the discussion cards to each group. Project 3 is purely applied and has a clear link to vaccines, but these cards describe how proposals 1, 2, and 4 turned out to be fundamental to the development of the COVID-19 vaccine in unexpected ways.
• Get the class to discuss whether this new information would have changed their funding decisions.
• Discuss whether the applications envisioned by the researchers were necessarily those that turned out to be important.

As previously stated, the goal of this activity is that students understand how research is funded and the differences between applied and basic research. The activity is designed to highlight how basic research often forms the foundation for applied research. Both types of research are important, but basic research can be perceived negatively in the eyes of the public. It is often impossible to predict how knowledge gained through a basic research project could be vital for an application in the future. Often multiple scientific advances have to be combined for an applied impact. Sometimes, scientists must accept that they may not be able to identify an immediate application for new knowledge generated. However, without new knowledge, we may lack the foundation for future applications that could be years away.

In this example, the three more basic research proposals proved to be vital to the final application. This can be easily illustrated with proposal cards 1 and 3. Proposal card 1 discusses modified mRNA, and this research underpinned the manufacture of the COVID-19 vaccine. The two proposals are so closely linked that you can replace the word ‘polynucleotide(s)’ with mRNA on proposal card 3 and the document still makes perfect sense.

As a follow up to this activity, ask students to go online and find the most obscure and weird basic scientific research (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal) they can find. The Ig Nobel Prizes are a good source of inspiration for this. Similar to the mosquito example used in the introduction to this activity, get the students to find practical applications behind the headlines and articles.

[1] Dieng H et al. (2019). The electronic song “Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites” reduces host attack and mating success in the dengue vector Aedes aegypti . Acta tropica 194 :93–99. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2019.03.027

[2] Erduran S, Ozdem Y, Park JY (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: a journal content analysis from 1998–2014 . International Journal of STEM Education , 2 :5. doi: 10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1.

• Discover CRISPR-Cas9 and how it revolutionized gene editing: Chan H (2016)  Faster, cheaper, CRISPR: the new gene technology revolution .  Science in School   38 :18–21.
• Read an article on different techniques to resolve and predict protein structures: Heber S (2021)  From gaming to cutting-edge biology: AI and the protein folding problem .  Science in School   52 .
• Read an article on how modern vaccines work: Paréj K (2021)  Vaccines in the spotlight .  Science in School   53 .
• Visit the Annals of Improbable Research , which runs the Ig Nobel Prizes, to learn more about research that makes you laugh and then makes you think.
• Read a simple explanation of basic research and its importance from the National Institute of Health.
• Read a short article from Harvard University on the importance of basic research .
• Watch a video on the potential uses of CRISPR outside gene editing.
• Watch a video on how 50 years of fundamental research enabled the rapid development of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19.
• Read an article from STAT describing the main steps that – 50 years later – led to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines .
• Watch a video introducing the ESRF and its 41 beamlines .
• Read an article from Scientific American that underlines the important issue of research funding and final profits .
• Read an article from c&en magazine on synchrotrons and their uses .
• Read an   interview with Katalin Karikó  in  Scientific American  that discusses her role in developing the mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines.

Dr Martin McHugh is the education and public engagement officer for SSPC , the Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) research centre for pharmaceuticals at the University of Limerick. Formerly a researcher in informal learning and part-time lecturer on science education, he has degrees from NUI Galway and the University of Edinburgh in environmental science and teaching. He is also a qualified secondary school science and biology teacher.

Dr Marcus Baumann is an assistant professor in the School of Chemistry at University College Dublin. He leads a research group aiming to develop new methods for the sustainable generation of drug-like molecules through the use of continuous-flow technologies. These methods are based on using light and enzymes in combination with machines to synthesise biologically active molecules.

Dr Sarah Hayes is the chief operating officer (COO) of SSPC . Sarah’s background is in physical chemistry and she received her PhD in Science Education. Sarah has many years of teaching experience as a physics and chemistry teacher. Through her various roles, she has been involved in research, curriculum development, and continuous professional development courses. Her most significant focus has been informal and non-formal learning and engagement.

Dr Jerry Reen is a lecturer in molecular microbial ecology at University College Cork. His research team study polymicrobial biofilm communities to understand molecular communication systems between species in disease and biotechnology. They also apply molecular technologies to harness biocatalytic proteins and bioactive compounds of marine origin.

Laurie Ryan is an assistant lecturer in general science at Athlone Institute of Technology (AIT). She is a former secondary school science teacher and conducts research in the area of STEM education and outreach. She is currently finishing her PhD examining argumentation in non-formal learning environments.

Dr Davide Tiana is a lecturer in inorganic chemistry at University College Cork. His independent group uses computational chemistry to study, understand, and explain chemistry. Their research goals range from developing new models to better explain chemical interactions (e.g., chemical bonding, dispersion forces) to the design of new molecules such as nanodrugs.

Dr Jessica Whelan is a lecturer at the University College Dublin School of Chemical and Bioprocess Engineering. Her research focuses on developing tools and approaches to optimize the production of proteins, vaccines, and cell and gene therapies. The aim is to make medicines available to patients at the highest quality and lowest cost possible.

Supporting materials

Download this article as a PDF

Share this article

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Skip to content

Initiatives and Committees

Plan your research, join a study, basic, clinical and translational research.

* Source: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm

• Open access
• Published: 03 April 2024

Perception, practice, and barriers toward research among pediatric undergraduates: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey

• Canyang Zhan 1 &
• Yuanyuan Zhang 2  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  364 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

160 Accesses

Metrics details

Scientific research activities are crucial for the development of clinician-scientists. However, few people pay attention to the current situation of medical research in pediatric medical students in China. This study aims to assess the perceptions, practices and barriers toward medical research of pediatric undergraduates.

This cross-sectional study was conducted among third-year, fourth-year and fifth-year pediatric students from Zhejiang University School of Medicine in China via an anonymous online questionnaire. The questionnaires were also received from fifth-year students majoring in other medicine programs [clinical medicine (“5 + 3”) and clinical medicine (5-year)].

The response rate of pediatric undergraduates was 88.3% (68/77). The total sample of students enrolled in the study was 124, including 36 students majoring in clinical medicine (“5 + 3”) and 20 students majoring in clinical medicine (5-year). Most students from pediatrics (“5 + 3”) recognized that research was important. Practices in scientific research activities are not satisfactory. A total of 51.5%, 35.3% and 36.8% of the pediatric students participated in research training, research projects and scientific article writing, respectively. Only 4.4% of the pediatric students contributed to publishing a scientific article, and 14.7% had attended medical congresses. None of them had given a presentation at a congress. When compared with fifth-year students in the other medicine program, the frequency of practices toward research projects and training was lower in the pediatric fifth-year students. Lack of time, lack of guidance and lack of training were perceived as the main barriers to scientific work. Limited English was another obvious barrier for pediatric undergraduates. Pediatric undergraduates preferred to participate in clinical research (80.9%) rather than basic research.

Conclusions

Although pediatric undergraduates recognized the importance of medical research, interest and practices in research still require improvement. Lack of time, lack of guidance, lack of training and limited English were the common barriers to scientific work. Therefore, research training and English improvement were recommended for pediatric undergraduates.

Peer Review reports

Medical education includes the learning of basic clinical medical knowledge and the cultivation of scientific research abilities. Scientific research, an essential part of medical education, is increasingly important, as it can greatly improve medical care [ 1 , 2 ]. Scientific research activities are crucial for the development of clinician-scientists, who have key roles in clinical research and translational medicine. Therefore, medical education is increasingly emphasizing the cultivation of scientific research abilities. Strengthening scientific research training helps students to develop independent critical thinking, improve the ability of observation, and foster the problem-solving skills. It is suggested that developing undergraduate research benefits the students, the faculty mentors, the university or institution, and eventually society [ 2 , 3 ]. As a result, there is a growing trend to integrate scientific research training into undergraduate medical education. Early exposure to scientific research was recommended in undergraduate medical students [ 4 , 5 ]. In fact, an international questionnaire study showed that among 1625 responses collected from 38 countries, less than half (42.7%) agree/strongly agree that their medical schools provided “sufficient training in medical research” [ 6 ]. The training or practices about medical research in undergraduates is not universal. In China, few people pay attention to the current situation of medical research in undergraduates, especially for pediatric medical students.

Due to changes in China’s birth policy (two-child policy in 2016 and the three-child policy in 2021), child health needs are increasing [ 7 ]. The shortage of pediatricians is alarming in China. Therefore, numerous policies have been implemented to meet the challenges of the shortage of pediatricians, including reinstating pediatrics as an independent discipline in medical school enrollment and increasing the enrollment of pediatrics. The number of pediatricians has increased year by year. The number of pediatricians in China increased from 118,500 in 2015 (0.52 pediatricians per 1000 children under the age of 14) to 206,000 in 2021 (0.78 pediatricians per 1000 children under the age of 14). With the increase in pediatric enrollment, pediatric medical education is facing new challenges. It is urgent to study the current situation of cultivation of pediatric medical students, one of which is the scientific research abilities [ 8 , 9 ]. However, as the particular background of pediatrics, very little is known about the perception, practice and barriers toward medical research in pediatric undergraduates. The purpose of this study was to address the gap by assessing the practices, perceptions and barriers toward medical research of pediatric undergraduates at Zhejiang University. The results can help to improve the mode of cultivating scientific research abilities among pediatric medical students.

The study was conducted from March to April 2023. The study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the Children’s Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine and was undertaken according to the Helsinki declaration. Participants provided written informed consent upon applying to participate in the study.

Study design and setting

This is a cross-sectional study conducted via an online questionnaire and the questionnaire was done simultaneously in all students. The study aimed to investigate the perception, practices and barriers toward research in pediatric undergraduates from Zhejiang University School of Medicine, and to investigate the differences in research among undergraduate students from clinical medicine (“5 + 3” integrated program, pediatrics) [pediatrics (“5 + 3”)], clinical medicine (“5 + 3” integrated program) [clinical medicine (“5 + 3”)] and clinical medicine (5-year).

The clinical medicine of Zhejiang University School of Medicine (ZUSM) includes a 5-year program, a “5 + 3” integrated program, and a 8-year MD. Program. The clinical medicine (5-year) program is the basis of clinical medicine education.Graduates need to complete 3 years of standardized residency training to become doctors. The clinical medicine (“5 + 3”) model combines the 5-year medical undergraduate education, 3-year standardized residency training and postgraduate education. Since 2015, 20 to 30 students who are interested in pediatrics were selected from second-year undergraduate students of clinical medicine (“5 + 3”) to continue studies as pediatrics (“5 + 3”) every year. Since 2019, ZUSM established pediatrics (“5 + 3”) program. 20–30 students have been enrolled independently every year.

Participants

All of the third-, fourth-, and fifth-year undergraduate students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) and some of the fifth-year undergraduate students from clinical medicine (“5 + 3”) and clinical medicine (5-year) who expressed an interest in participating in the study were enrolled.

Data collection

The questionnaire was self-designed after reviewing the literature and consulting senior faculty. For the purpose of testing its clarity and reliability, the questionnaire was pilot tested among 36 undergraduate students. Their feedback was mainly related to the structure of the questionnaire. To address these comments, the questionnaire was modified to reach the final draft, which was distributed to the student sample included in the study. The reliability coefficient was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha, and the validity was evaluated by Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO).

There are four sections of the questionnaire used in this study:

The first part covered 3 statements (gender, grade and major).

The second part examined the participants’ perceptions of medical research, including 5 statements (importance, enhancement of competitiveness, practising thinking ability, solving clinical problems, and being interesting).

The third part examined practices in medical research, including 6 statements (project, training, write paper, publish paper, attend academic conference and conference communication).

The barriers to medical research were assessed in the last part, including 7 statements.

Perception and barriers toward medical research were evaluated using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

Statistical analysis

Categorical data are represented as numbers and frequencies. For ease of reporting and analyzing data, the responses of “agree” and “strongly agree” were grouped and reported as agreements, and “disagree” and “strongly disagree” were grouped as disagreements. The chi-square test was used to test the difference in the frequency of participation in research practices. The student’s perception score based on grades was analyzed using Fisher’s exact test, and attitude between the year of study was analyzed by ANOVA or a nonparametric test (Kruskal-Wallis H test). The statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 26. P  < 0.05 was considered significant.

The reliability coefficient of the questionnaire was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha; it was 0.73 for perception and 0.78 for barriers. KMO was 0.80 for perception (Bartlett’s sphericity test: χ2 = 200.4, p  < 0.001) and 0.73 for barriers (Bartlett’s sphericity test: χ2 = 278.4, p  < 0.001), indicating the appropriateness of the factor analysis. The factor analysis was carried out using the principal component analysis with varimax rotation. For perception, one factor explains 58.2% of the variance. For barriers, two-factor solution explains 60.2% of the variance.

The response rate was 79.2% (19/24) in the third year, 88% (22/25) in the fourth year and 96.4% (27/28) in the fifth year students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”), and the total response rate was 88.3% (68/77). The number of fifth-year students majoring in clinical medicine (“5 + 3”) and clinical medicine (5-year) was 36 and 20, respectively. Thus, a total of 124 students participated in the questionnaire. Among the participants, approximately 46% were male and 54% were female.

Perception regarding scientific research among the students majoring in pediatrics (“5 + 3”)

The majority of students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) recognized that research was important (92.6%), such as increasing competitiveness, solving clinical problems and improving thinking (Fig.  1 ). Approximately half of the students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) were interested in the research.

Perception regarding scientific research among the students majoring in pediatrics

Among the third-, fourth-, and fifth-year students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”), there was a significant difference in the effect of research on thinking ability (Table  1 ). A stronger understanding of the importance of research for thinking abilities was found in students from the fifth year.

Comparing the perception of medical research among the fifth-year students from the different medicine programs, there was a significant difference in the interest in research (Table  2 ). The fifth-year undergraduates from clinical medicine (5-year) received the highest score for interest in scientific research, followed by pediatrics (“5 + 3”).

Practices regarding scientific research among students majoring in pediatrics (“5 + 3”)

More than half of the students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) participated in research training. Approximately 36.8% of them were involved in writing scientific articles, and 35.3% participated in research projects (Table  3 ). Only 4.4% of the students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) contributed to publishing a scientific article, and 14.7% of the students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) had attended medical congresses. However, none of the students had made a presentation at congresses.

A statistically significant difference was observed among different grades in the pediatrics (“5 + 3”) program, with fifth-year students having a much higher rate of participation in conferences. However, no significant differences were observed in other forms of medical research practices.

When compared with fifth-year students from other programs (clinical medicine “5 + 3” or 5-year), the students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) had a lower rate of participation in the projects (Table  4 ). The rate of participation in the research training of the pediatric students was lower than that of clinical medicine (5-year) (44.44% vs. 75%). There were no significant differences in other research practices, such as writing articles and attending congress.

Barriers regarding scientific research among the students majoring in pediatrics (“5 + 3”)

The most common barriers to research work for pediatric students were lack of training (85.3%), lack of time (83.9%), and lack of mentorship (82.4%).

However, the top three barriers to research work in fifth-year pediatric students were lack of training (96.3%), limited English (88.89%) and lack of time (88.89%). We found that the barrier of “lack of training” became increasingly apparent with grade, which was significantly obvious in fifth-year pediatric students compared with other grades (Table  5 ). The other barriers had no significant differences among the three grades from the pediatrics (“5 + 3”) program.

When compared with fifth-year students from other programs (clinical medicine “5 + 3” or 5-year), the rate of agreement about the barrier of “limited English” was significantly higher in fifth-year students from the pediatrics (“5 + 3”) program. There were no significant differences in other barriers among fifth-year students from different majors (Table  6 ).

The type of research activities willing to involve in the future among the students majoring in pediatrics (“5 + 3”)

A total of 88.2% of students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) wanted to participate in the training of scientific research activities. Furthermore, when asked about the type of future scientific research activities, 80.9% of students wanted to participate in clinical research, and only 19.1% of students wanted to be involved in basic research. There was no significant difference in the different grades of the students from the pediatrics (“5 + 3”) program (Fig.  2 A).

Types of research activities that students majoring in pediatrics are willing to be involved with in the future ( A ). Types of research activities that the students from different programs are willing to be involved with in the future ( B ). When compared with students in clinical medicine (“5 + 3”), fifth-year students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) were significantly less likely to participate in basic research (* P  = 0.001)

Compared with students in clinical medicine (“5 + 3”), fifth-year students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) were significantly less likely to participate in basic research (Fig.  2 B).

In China, to solve the shortage of pediatricians, pediatric programs have resumed in some medical schools, including Zhejiang University, in recent years. In this study, we focused on the perceptions, practices and barriers to scientific research in pediatric undergraduates from Zhejiang University.

With global progress, more research is required to advance knowledge and innovation in all fields. Likewise, at the present time, research activities are a highly important skill for medical practitioner. Medical students were encouraged to take active part in scientific research and prepare for today’s knowledge-driven world [ 2 ]. In the current study, we found an overall positive perception of scientific research in pediatric undergraduates. More than 90% of pediatric students agreed (“strongly agree” and “agree”) that scientific research was important, which could make them more competitive and improve their thinking.

Although the students had a positive perception of medical research, their practice of conducting research remained unsatisfactory. When compared with the fifth-year undergraduates from clinical medicine (“5 + 3”) (66.67%) and clinical medicine (5-year) (75%), only 33.33% of the fifth-year undergraduates in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) have participated in scientific research projects. The number of paper publications was very small (third-year of Pediatric (“5 + 3”) 0, fourth-year 4.5% and fifth-year 7.4%). It was significantly less than the publication rate of final-year students in the United States (46.5%) and Australia (roughly one-third) [ 10 , 11 ]. In another study in Romania, 31% of fifth-year students declared that they had prepared a scientific presentation for a medical congress at least once [ 12 ]. Moreover, none of the students in the study presented their paper in the scientific forum. A study in India also found that the undergraduate students’ experience of presenting paper in scientific forums was only 5% and publication 5.6% [ 13 ]. As part of the curriculum, some Indian universities require postgraduates to present papers and submit manuscripts for publication. Nevertheless, the practices regarding scientific research of undergraduates is still relatively poor. Lack of time, lack of guidance and lack of training for research careers were found to be the major obstacles in medical research for both pediatric students and others, which is consistent with previous reports [ 5 , 14 , 15 ]. The questionnaire in residents also found that lack of time was a critical problem for scientific research [ 16 ]. There is no common practice about how to solve this difficulty. In the literature, it was usually recommended that integration of scientific research training into the curricular requirements for undergraduates or residency programs for residents should be implemented [ 7 , 14 , 17 , 18 ]. An increasing number of medical schools have individual projects as a component of their curriculum or mandatory medical research projects to develop research competencies [ 19 , 20 ].

Interestingly, in fifth-year pediatric undergraduates (“5 + 3”), English limitations were found to be one of the most common barriers. The barrier of the limitation of English was increasingly better as the grades increased in pediatric students. We speculated that this was related to the increasing awareness of the importance of scientific research and participation in scientific research activities, increasing demand for reading English literature and writing English articles. Furthermore, the English limitation barrier for pediatric students was more obvious than that for students from clinical medicine (“5 + 3”) and clinical medicine (5-year). They are worried about academic English. Horwitz et al. first proposed “foreign language anxiety” [ 21 ]. Deng and Zhou explored medical students’ medical English anxiety in Sichuan, China. They found that 85.2% of the students surveyed suffered moderate above medical English anxiety [ 22 ]. In the questionnaire, 88.89% of the fifth-year pediatric students believed that limited English was one of the most important barriers for scientific research. Currently, English is the chief language of communication in the field of medical science, including correspondence, conferences, writing scientific articles, and reading literature. Ma Y noted that medical English should be the most important component of college English teaching for medical students [ 23 ]. At Zhejiang University, all of the students, including those majoring in pediatrics (“5 + 3”), clinical medicine (“5 + 3”) and clinical medicine (5-year), had a medical English course during the undergraduate period. Thus, the course could not satisfy the demands for scientific research, such as reading English literature, writing English paper and oral presentation in English. To solve this barrier, it was suggested to understand the requirements of pediatric students for medical English learning and offer more courses about medical English or English writing training for pediatric students. Furthermore, undergraduates should be encouraged to participate in local, regional or national conferences that are not in English but in Chinese language, which can increase the interest in participating in scientific research.

Most of the pediatric students tended to choose clinical research, while only 19.1% wanted to attend basic research. The proportion of fifth-year students in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) choosing basic research was much lower than the students from the clinical medicine (“5 + 3”) program. It is speculated that pediatrics usually have heavier clinical work with relative poor scientific practice in China, compare with doctors from other clinical department. They are likely to concern the clinical research. The students in pediatrics might not obtain sufficient scientific guidance from their clinician teachers compared with those from other medicine program. According to the data, the Pediatric College could conduct more scientific research training directed at clinical research, such as the design, conduct and administration of clinical trials. The simulation-based clinical research curriculum is considered to be a better approach training of clinician-scientists compared with traditional clinical research teaching [ 24 ]. On the other hand, we might need to do more to improve the interest in basic research for pediatric undergraduates.

The major limitation of the present study is the small sample size. Only 20 to 30 students have been enrolled in pediatrics (“5 + 3”) of ZUSM every year. Therefore, multicenter studies (multiple medical schools) might be better to understand the perception, practice, and barriers of medical research among pediatric undergraduates. Even so, the findings in this study indicate that lack of time, lack of guidance, lack of training and limited English might be the common barriers to scientific work for pediatric undergraduates. Furthermore, the questionnaire for teachers and administrators would be performed to offer some concrete solutions in future.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

Zhejiang University School of Medicine

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

Hanney SR, González-Block MA. Health research improves healthcare: now we have the evidence and the chance to help the WHO spread such benefits globally. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:12.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adebisi YA. Undergraduate students’ involvement in research: values, benefits, barriers and recommendations. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;81:104384.

Google Scholar  

Petrella JK, Jung AP. Undergraduate research: importance, benefits, and challenges. Int J Exerc Sci. 2008;1(3):91–5.

Stone C, Dogbey GY, Klenzak S, Van Fossen K, Tan B, Brannan GD. Contemporary global perspectives of medical students on research during undergraduate medical education: a systematic literature review. Med Educ Online. 2018;23(1):1537430.

El Achi D, Al Hakim L, Makki M, Mokaddem M, Khalil PA, Kaafarani BR, et al. Perception, attitude, practice and barriers towards medical research among undergraduate students. BMC Med Educ. 2020;17(1):195.

Funston G, Piper RJ, Connell C, Foden P, Young AM, O’Neill P. Medical student perceptions of research and research-orientated careers: an international questionnaire study. Med Teach. 2016;38(10):1041–8.

Tatum M. China’s three-child policy. Lancet. 2021;397:2238.

Rivkees SA, Kelly M, Lodish M, Weiner D. The Pediatric Medical Student Research Forum: fostering interest in Pediatric Research. J Pediatr. 2017;188:3–4.

Barrett KJ, Cooley TM, Schwartz AL, Hostetter MK, Clapp DW, Permar SR. Addressing gaps in Pediatric Scientist Development: the Department Chair View of 2 AMSPDC-Sponsored Programs. J Pediatr. 2020;222:7–e124.

Jacobs CD, Cross PC. The value of medical student research: the experience at Stanford University School of Medicine. Med Educ. 1995;29(5):342–6.

Muhandiramge J, Vu T, Wallace MJ, Segelov E. The experiences, attitudes and understanding of research amongst medical students at an Australian medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):267.

Pop AI, Lotrean LM, Buzoianu AD, Suciu SM, Florea M. Attitudes and practices regarding Research among Romanian Medical Undergraduate Students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1872.

Pallamparthy S, Basavareddy A. Knowledge, attitude, practice, and barriers toward research among medical students: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey. Perspect Clin Res. 2019;10:73–8.

Assar A, Matar SG, Hasabo EA, Elsayed SM, Zaazouee MS, Hamdallah A, et al. Knowledge, attitudes, practices and perceived barriers towards research in undergraduate medical students of six arab countries. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):44.

Kharraz R, Hamadah R, AlFawaz D, Attasi J, Obeidat AS, Alkattan W, et al. Perceived barriers towards participation in undergraduate research activities among medical students at Alfaisal University-College of Medicine: a Saudi Arabian perspective. Med Teach. 2016;38(Suppl 1):S12–8.

Fournier I, Stephenson K, Fakhry N, Jia H, Sampathkumar R, Lechien JR, et al. Barriers to research among residents in Otolaryngology - Head & Neck surgery around the world. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2019;136(3S):S3–7.

Abu-Zaid A, Alkattan K. Integration of scientific research training into undergraduate medical education: a reminder call. Med Educ Online. 2013;18:22832.

Eyigör H, Kara CO. Otolaryngology residents’ attitudes, experiences, and barriers regarding the Medical Research. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;59(3):215–22.

Möller R, Shoshan M. Medical students’ research productivity and career preferences; a 2-year prospective follow-up study. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):51.

Laidlaw A, Aiton J, Struthers J, Guild S. Developing research skills in medical students: AMEE Guide 69. Med Teach. 2012;34(9):e754–71.

Horwitz EK, Horwitz MBH, Cope J. Foreign Language Classroom anxiety. Mod Lang J. 1986;70(2):125–32.

Deng J, Zhou K, Al-Shaibani GKS. Medical English anxiety patterns among medical students in Sichuan, China. Front Psychol. 2022;13:895117.

Ma Y. Exploring medical English curriculum and teaching from the perspective of ESP-A case study of a medical English teaching. Technol Enhan Lang Educ. 2009;125(1):60–3.

Yan S, Huang Q, Huang J, Wang Y, Li X, Wang Y, et al. Clinical research capability enhanced for medical undergraduates: an innovative simulation-based clinical research curriculum development. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):543.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the students who participated as volunteers for their contribution to the study.

This work was supported by grants from the “14th Five-Year Plan” teaching reform project of an ordinary undergraduate university in Zhejiang Province (jg20220041) and project of graduate education research in Zhejiang University (20210317).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Neonatology, Children’s Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health, Hangzhou, China

Canyang Zhan

Department of Pulmonology, Children’s Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health, Hangzhou, China

Yuanyuan Zhang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CZ designed and supervised the study progress. CZ and YZ wrote the manuscript and collected and analyzed the questionnaire data. All the authors have read and approved the manuscript prior to submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuanyuan Zhang .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Our study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the Children’s Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine and was undertaken according to the Helsinki declaration. Written informed consent was obtained from each participant upon their application to the work.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhan, C., Zhang, Y. Perception, practice, and barriers toward research among pediatric undergraduates: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey. BMC Med Educ 24 , 364 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05361-x

Download citation

Received : 14 October 2023

Accepted : 27 March 2024

Published : 03 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05361-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Undergraduate research
• Medical research

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Federal Research: Key Practices for Scientific Program Managers

In fiscal year 2021, the federal government funded over $85 billion in basic research as well as early research directed toward a specific practical aim. Federal research spurs innovation and promotes national economic competitiveness, prosperity, and security.

Scientific program managers at federal agencies that sponsor research play a crucial role in guiding and shaping the research. This report identifies key practices that program managers use to select, monitor, and coordinate research for their agencies. It can also serve as a resource to help program managers, agencies, and others to understand, assess, and improve research management.

What GAO Found

To oversee basic and applied research at federal agencies, scientific program managers are typically responsible for managing award selection, monitoring ongoing awards, and coordinating with awardees and the research community. Program managers GAO interviewed from selected agencies identified key practices they used to carry out these responsibilities. They said these practices helped advance their agencies' goals, further science, and avoid unnecessary duplication. Further, the practices may help program managers, agencies, and others assess and improve management of basic and applied research.

As outlined in the figure below, the key practices fall into three areas.

• Strengthening and building expertise—Practices that help program managers maintain scientific and management expertise.
• Developing connections—Practices that help program managers enhance collaboration with the scientific community and the public, as well as within their own agencies and in other agencies.
• Building a strong research portfolio—Practices that help program managers advance their agencies' research mission and scientific knowledge in general, while ensuring their own accountability and that of federally funded researchers.

Key Practices for Federal Program Managers to Select, Coordinate, and Monitor Scientific Research

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government invests in basic and applied scientific research to drive innovation, promote economic competitiveness, and enhance national security. The National Science Foundation estimates that 32 federal agencies funded over $85 billion in basic and applied research in fiscal year 2021.

Scientific program managers at federal agencies that sponsor basic and applied research play a critical role in guiding and shaping the research funded by their agencies.

In this report, GAO describes key practices that federal program managers use to manage their research.

GAO held 14 group discussions with 79 program managers from seven selected agencies that funded over 90 percent of basic and applied research obligations in fiscal year 2021. GAO asked the program managers to describe the practices they use when managing projects in their basic and applied research portfolios. GAO conducted qualitative analysis to identify common themes and distilled them into 10 key practices. These key practices were cited by multiple program managers or agencies and could be used by program managers across the federal government when managing projects in their basic and applied research portfolios.

GAO also conducted a literature review to help corroborate the key practices. GAO sought and incorporated feedback on these practices from the selected agencies as well as experts identified by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

For more information, contact Candice N. Wright at (202) 512-6888 or [email protected] .

Full Report

Gao contacts.

Candice N. Wright Director [email protected] (202) 512-6888

Office of Public Affairs

Chuck Young Managing Director [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Research Transparency in 59 Fields of Medical and Health Sciences: A Meta-Research Study

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• ORCID record for Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• ORCID record for Eero Raittio
• ORCID record for Sergio E. Uribe
• ORCID record for Sahar Khademioore
• ORCID record for Dena Zeraatkar
• ORCID record for Lawrence Mbuagbaw
• ORCID record for Lex M. Bouter
• ORCID record for Karen A. Robinson
• Info/History
• Supplementary material
• Preview PDF

Background: Transparency in research is crucial as it allows for the scrutiny and replication of findings, fosters confidence in scientific outcomes, and ultimately contributes to the advancement of knowledge and the betterment of society. Aim: We aimed to assess adherence to five practices promoting transparency in scientific publications (data availability, code availability, protocol registration, conflicts of interest (COI) and funding disclosures) from open-access articles published in medical journals. Methods: We searched and exported all open-access articles from Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)-indexed journals through the Europe PubMed Central database published until March 16, 2024. Basic journal- and article-related information was retrieved from the database. We used R to produce descriptive statistics. Results: The analysis included 2,189,542 open-access articles from SCIE-indexed medical journals. Of these, 87.5% (95% CI: 87.4%-87.5%) disclosed COI and 80.1% (95% CI: 80.0%-80.1%) disclosed funding. Protocol registration was present in 6.6% (95% CI: 6.6%-6.6%), data sharing in 7.6% (95% CI: 7.6%-7.6%), and code sharing in 1.4% (95% CI: 1.4%-1.4%) of the articles. More than 76.0% adhered to at least two transparency practices, while full adherence to all five practices was less than 0.02%. The data showed an increasing trend in adherence to transparency practices since the late 2000s. COI and funding were disclosed more often in lower impact factor journals whereas protocol registration and data and code sharing were more prevalent in higher impact factor journals (all had P-values<0.001). Also, articles that did not disclose their COI had higher median citations. Among all fields, Rheumatology (97.2%), Neuroimaging (94.6%), Anesthesiology (32.4%), Genetics & Heredity (36.7%), and Neuroimaging (12.5%) showed the highest level of transparency in COI and funding disclosure, protocol registration, and data and code sharing, respectively. Whereas Medicine, Legal (61.5%), Andrology (59.0%), Materials Science, Biomaterials (0.3%), Surgery (1.5%), and Nursing (<0.01%) showed the lowest adherence. Conclusion: While most articles and fields had a COI disclosure, adherence to other transparent practices was far from acceptable. To increase protocol registration, data, and code sharing, much stronger commitment is needed from all stakeholders.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Data Availability

All the code and data associated with the study were shared through both its OSF repository (https://osf.io/zbc6p/) and GitHub (https://github.com/choxos/medical-transparency) when the manuscript was submitted.

https://osf.io/zbc6p/

View the discussion thread.

Supplementary Material

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One
• Addiction Medicine (316)
• Allergy and Immunology (620)
• Anesthesia (160)
• Cardiovascular Medicine (2284)
• Dentistry and Oral Medicine (280)
• Dermatology (201)
• Emergency Medicine (370)
• Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (805)
• Epidemiology (11591)
• Forensic Medicine (10)
• Gastroenterology (681)
• Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3600)
• Geriatric Medicine (337)
• Health Economics (618)
• Health Informatics (2311)
• Health Policy (916)
• Health Systems and Quality Improvement (865)
• Hematology (335)
• HIV/AIDS (753)
• Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13170)
• Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (758)
• Medical Education (360)
• Medical Ethics (100)
• Nephrology (391)
• Neurology (3367)
• Nursing (191)
• Nutrition (508)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (652)
• Occupational and Environmental Health (647)
• Oncology (1764)
• Ophthalmology (526)
• Orthopedics (210)
• Otolaryngology (284)
• Pain Medicine (223)
• Palliative Medicine (66)
• Pathology (441)
• Pediatrics (1008)
• Pharmacology and Therapeutics (422)
• Primary Care Research (407)
• Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3074)
• Public and Global Health (6003)
• Radiology and Imaging (1226)
• Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (715)
• Respiratory Medicine (811)
• Rheumatology (367)
• Sexual and Reproductive Health (356)
• Sports Medicine (318)
• Surgery (390)
• Toxicology (50)
• Transplantation (171)
• Urology (142)

What is Basic Research? Insights from Historical Semantics

• Open access
• Published: 24 June 2014
• Volume 52 , pages 273–328, ( 2014 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Désirée Schauz 1  

24k Accesses

45 Citations

18 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

For some years now, the concept of basic research has been under attack. Yet although the significance of the concept is in doubt, basic research continues to be used as an analytical category in science studies. But what exactly is basic research? What is the difference between basic and applied research? This article seeks to answer these questions by applying historical semantics. I argue that the concept of basic research did not arise out of the tradition of pure science. On the contrary, this new concept emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a time when scientists were being confronted with rising expectations regarding the societal utility of science. Scientists used the concept in order to try to bridge the gap between the promise of utility and the uncertainty of scientific endeavour. Only after 1945, when United States science policy shaped the notion of basic research, did the concept revert to the older ideals of pure science. This revival of the purity discourse was caused by the specific historical situation in the US at that time: the need to reform federal research policy after the Second World War, the new dimension of ethical dilemmas in science and technology during the atomic era, and the tense political climate during the Cold War.

Similar content being viewed by others

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

Drishti Yadav

The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research

Mattia Casula, Nandhini Rangarajan & Patricia Shields

Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory: Its Development, Core Concepts, and Critical Issues

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

For some years now, the concept of basic research has been under attack. Its relevance has been questioned empirically as a result of changes in academic research, normatively with respect to science policy, and even theoretically in science and technology studies. Yet while the significance of the concept is in doubt, basic research is still a very common analytical category, deployed not least as a means of distinguishing the new future science policy from the old ideal of basic research. But what exactly is basic research? What is the difference between basic and applied research? Aside from a few exceptional studies (Calvert 2006 ; Godin 2005a ; Pielke 2012 ), science studies have only just begun to seriously reflect upon these questions. When and why did the concept of basic research emerge in the first place? Is the ideal of basic research nothing more than a relaunch of the older pure-science discourse? Historical semantics appears to be a useful approach for answering these questions because its historical perspective provides the conceptual clarity required both in current debates in science and technology studies and public debates on science policy.

In the 1990s, sociological studies claimed that science was undergoing profound changes. Since then, prominent labels such as “Mode 2” or “triple helix” have come to signify a new way of organizing science and technology that transgresses institutional boundaries between universities, industry, and governmental research. According to the alleged paradigm shift from Mode 1 to Mode 2, application-oriented research programmes with cooperative and transdisciplinary project teams have replaced the former university-centred basic research mode. Proponents of this new way of comprehending knowledge production even call for science policy to be modified in order to reflect the altered research mode (Gibbons et al. 1994 ; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1997 ). Our “Leonardo world”, as portrayed by Jürgen Mittelstraß, is ruled by the imperative of technology. The interplay of science and technology raises society’s expectations of research applications, even when the outcomes sometimes turn out to be risky (Mittelstraß 1994 ). These arguments have certainly shaped the debates in science and technology studies and science policy in recent years, although discussions about the degree of change and how to evaluate it remain controversial (Weingart 2008 ; Greenberg 2007 ).

According to studies addressing these historical shifts in science, basic research determined the status quo ante. These studies describe basic research as an application-disinterested mode of research embedded in a disciplinary and academic setting that contrasts, in respect of every analytical feature, to Mode 2. The concept of Mode 1, however, is not based upon profound historical analysis; it rather appears to represent the previously prevailing sociological perspective on science in the tradition of Robert Merton, who emphasized disinterestedness and universalism as central characteristics of modern science. Yet historical studies suggest that the way in which science was organized had already undergone significant change in the early 20th century, as politicians, scientists, and industry formed a new alliance from which all three groups hoped to benefit (Ash 2002 ; Mowery and Rosenberg 1993 ).

Moreover, although recent debates in science studies have demonstrated high levels of discontent with the notion of basic research, producing instead new analytic labels like triple helix or Mode 2, the term “basic research” and its antonym “applied research” continue to frame the discourse about science, without any awareness of both terms’ historical conditionality as discursive strategies in research policy. The semantic dichotomy merely gives way to a continuum between basic and applied research in which the favourite mode, the “use-inspired basic research” (in German “ anwendungsorientierte Grundlagenforschung ”), is located somewhere in the middle of the continuum (Stokes 1997 ; Mittelstraß 1994 ). However, aside from the motif of application, we lack an explicit set of distinctive criteria because studies persist in assuming basic research to be a given category.

In other studies, categories such as basic and applied research no longer play a major role. Research grounded in approaches such as actor-network theory, that is studies emphasizing the societal context of science, anthropological studies focusing on day-to-day laboratory work, and the new – although still vague – concept of technoscience are united in their critique of discursive boundaries, which they claim to obstruct the view on the reality of research. While research dealing with Mode 2 indicates the change within the historical development of science, those supporting these new approaches call for a change in theoretical perspective. Bruno Latour, one of the most famous proponents of this idea, identifies demarcations such as nature/society or science/technology as a typically modern delusion covering, albeit quite successfully, the hybrid character of research (Latour 1993 ). Claiming an overall paradigm shift for the social sciences, Latour suspects that traditional sociology has frozen thought within boundaries and institutional separations in its studies for quite a long time and levels his criticisms at a static display of society blind to the dynamics of interactions (Latour 2005 ). For Latour, the distinction between basic and applied research is supposed to be part of these delusive demarcations: such a simple dichotomous order cannot represent the “complicated and unpredictable relations between scientists and other agencies” (Latour 1987 : 117). Latour argues that the high esteem in which basic science is held does not correspond with the reality of technoscience. In his early call for the concept of technoscience, he even argued statistically, interpreting the high proportion of spending on development and applied research in contrast to that spent on basic research evident in research and development statistics as indicative of the real importance of technology and the level of overall support it receives within society (Latour 1987 : esp. 168–173).

Latour’s argument about modern delusions and his opposition to a basic-research-centred perspective on science have found resonance among some historians of science. For instance, Peter Dear identifies the ideology of modern science as misrepresenting the reality of research in the natural sciences. Although, according to Dear, some effort has been made to integrate the instrumental and useful character of the natural sciences in the tradition of science since Francis Bacon, natural philosophy, with its ideal of contemplative understanding, has retained the upper hand (Dear 2005 : 404). From an historical point of view, this discrepancy between the philosophical notion of science and research practice appears as an anachronism requiring explanation. In general, criticism levelled at the long-prevailing ideal of pure science has led to a reorientation in the history of science that includes the applied side of science and opens up the field to the history of technology (Forman 2010 ). Recent studies look beyond the academic core – the universities – and into industrial laboratories, where the majority of researchers have worked throughout the 20th century (Shapin 2008 ).

Despite this growing awareness of the ideological or normative character of basic research, the majority of historians still use the concept as a given, analytical category without questioning its relationship to varying historical contexts. Studies on German war-time science, for instance, try to determine to which extreme of the basic-applied continuum the examined research projects tended. Footnote 1 As to the history of US science and innovation policy, the concept of basic research seems to be inevitably associated with the name of Vannevar Bush and the reorganization of US science after the Second World War. The basic-applied taxonomy is therefore primarily regarded as representation of the institutional logic of modern research organization: the so-called linear model which coined the idea of innovation process for so many years. Investigating the negotiation of science policy in the 1940s, historical studies have revealed dissenting political preferences and conflictive institutional interests, demonstrating that the post-war order in science policy had initially been highly contested. However, although the historical contingency of the concept has thus become more and more apparent, many historians still do not reflect on the meanings and functions of the concept of basic research. Even the meteoric career of this relatively young term does not seem to be puzzling historians. They rather interpret the concept as additional part of an existing taxonomy, “supplementing” the former “language of pure and applied science” (Dennis 2004 : 225). As a result, the concept of basic research has been locked up in a black box next to “pure science” whose meaning is also still enigmatic (Galison 2008 ). It is only recently that the investigation of shifting functions, varying meanings and symbolic dimensions of the concept of basic research – beyond the institutional level of research organization and funding – have become an object of interest in the history of science (Krige 2006 ). Footnote 2

What remains of the current debates in science and technology studies is the question as to why demarcations such as basic and applied research have occurred at all. If Latour is right in pointing out that the concepts of basic and applied research do not represent actual research practices, why have these terms become so important? Which (other) functions have they fulfilled? More precisely, what has “basic research” meant for the identity of science and for its relationship to technology? Which role has the concept of basic research played in science policy, that is in the negotiations between science and society about aims and values of research? And how has the concept affected the public image of science?

This article therefore seeks to analyze the genesis of the concept of basic research up until the early 1960s, by which time it had become a common concept in science policy in the West. It will also take a brief look at discourses on pure science prevalent in the 19th century as a means of establishing the effects of historical legacy and variation over time. This study has two central aims. Firstly, it intends to detect the different semantic dimensions of basic research – its institutional, epistemic, ethical, social, and political attributions. Secondly, it discusses the significance of the concept of basic research in the natural sciences, in research policy, and in science studies: to which historical challenges faced by research in the 20th century did the concept of basic research respond?

I argue that the concepts of basic research and fundamental research did not arise out of the 19th-century tradition of pure science, which had idealized research as an intrinsically philosophical search for eternal truth. On the contrary, these new concepts emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries at a time when society’s expectations regarding the utility of science were rising sharply. In the knowledge that research output is hard to predict, scientists used these concepts to bridge the gap between the promise of utility and the uncertainty of scientific endeavour. Only after 1945, when US policy strongly shaped the notion of basic research, did these concepts revert to the older ideals of pure science. In order to understand this revival of the purity discourse, we need to take the specific historical situation of the post-war US into account, in particular the new plans for federal funding of research, the new dimension of ethical dilemmas faced by science and technology following Hiroshima, and the overall political climate of the Cold-War era. The insights gained from historical semantics show that basic research was not – and cannot be – considered a clearly distinguishable analytical mode of research. After 1945, the concept of basic research formed part of a discursive strategy that adjusted scientific research to complex and even contradictory societal requirements; it was for these socio-political reasons that the concept became so important. Consequently, moral and ideological attributions were and still are inseparably tied to the concept of basic research.

American and German discourses provide the empirical basis of this study. Yet this article is not intended as a fully-fledged comparative study of two countries. Rather, I analyze Germany and the US because these countries were considered best-practice models in science at varying points in time and they both share a long history of mutual exchange and learning. At different points in time, each of the two countries allows us to trace the emergence and evolution of specific understandings of the role of science in society. The first section on the older pure-science ideals of the 19th century revolves mainly around Germany, which had become a leading science nation at that time. In the following section, which discusses how the concept of basic research emerged and evolved until 1945, the German experience also takes centre stage. The third section covers US science policy from the Second World War until the early 1960s, when the term basic research had become established as a key concept in science policy. The article ends, on a more comparative note, with a short history of the concept of basic research in post-war Germany. The second and the third sections overlap in time because the Second World War and the post-war period require a more comparative perspective. For a long time, scientific research during the Nazi period was thought to represent a turning away from all fundamental principles of science. The war, however, confronted both US and German scientists with similar political demands and requirements. After 1945, US policy became a role model for the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). Before the empirical analysis commences, however, the next section will introduce readers to historical semantics and discuss how I will use this approach to structure the empirical discussion.

Some Remarks on Historical Semantics

This study resorts to approaches in conceptual history and discourse analysis. Discourse analysis fits with the research questions for several reasons. Firstly, it is designed to make visible what is taken for granted when people think or talk about social phenomena and the implicit rules that apply in the practice of framing topics. Secondly, discourse analysis identifies classifications and demarcations, such as the distinction between basic and applied research, as essential strategies in discursive practice. Thirdly, it is based on the assumption that discursive production is historically contingent. Whereas discourse analysis strives, in the main, to analyze patterns of assertions, conceptual history focuses on semantics and key concepts. Especially the latter takes the polysemy of language and communication into account. Moreover, conceptual history’s foundation in the philosophy of history means that it offers us assumptions about semantic shifts over time.

In contrast to the tradition of semantic analyses in the philosophy of science, which is mainly interested in the epistemic impact of metaphors (Blumenberg 2010 ), my study is based on a strand of historical semantics rooted in historical studies on the dawn of modernity. It focuses on key concepts in social and political language. If we assume that basic research is largely a concept of science policy or of negotiations between the scientific community and the public, then this approach seems more suitable for this study. Moreover, conceptual history is embedded in reflections about the philosophy of history. According to Reinhart Koselleck, the major proponent of the German school of conceptual history, a shifting societal dictionary – the emergence of neologisms or changes in semantic attributions – indicates historical upheaval. Key concepts and parts of their meanings, however, may persist, so that old and new semantic dimensions coexist. Koselleck’s approach thus corresponds with approaches in the philosophy of history that take different layers of time into account. Koselleck clearly demonstrates that language is not an epiphenomenon of reality, but rather that it frames both human experience and the way in which society perceives the world. He conceives key concepts as cognitive strategies designed to deal with reality, especially in situations where expectation and experience diverge. Ideologies, in particular, are supposed to compensate semantically for a lack of convergence between expectations and experiences (Koselleck 2006 : 85).

Whereas Koselleck’s conceptual history defines key concepts primarily as cognitive strategies of the human that deal with reality, discourse analysis goes further in assuming that discursive strategies might serve various societal functions. In his commentary on the concept of the dispositive, Michel Foucault emphasized that discourses, non-discursive practices, institutions, and objects are linked by common strategic functions. This does not mean, however, that the outcome of such a strategic dispositive necessarily corresponds to the initial function. On the one hand, novel discourses have the power to set new practices or different forms of institutional organization. On the other hand, it is also possible that emerging discourses provide existing institutions or operations with new legitimacy. The history of dispositives also turns out to be quite complex. Taking Foucault’s remarks on the philosophy of history into account, the concept of the dispositive is quite similar to Koselleck’s idea of a complex history of different layers of time lying upon one another (Schauz 2010 ).

Since discourse analysis has progressed by adapting aspects of polysemy, the combination with conceptual historical approaches has become more obvious. One approach appears to be particularly fruitful for investigating the history of basic research: Jürgen Link’s idea of “collective symbols”, which came about when Link dealt with the problem of interdiscursive processes. Link believes that multiple meanings of metaphors and symbols are capable of linking different discourses demonstrating diverse patterns of assertions (Link 1986 ). In other words, metaphors can bridge discursive gaps. With regard to this study, science policy may be described as one such interdiscursive process in which scientific expectations encounter society’s expectations. And, without anticipating the detailed analysis of the concept of basic research below, it is obvious that “basic” as the first part of the compound offers a variety of possible interpretations.

Of course, discourse analysis also has a tradition in science studies, in particular regarding demarcation discourses. Most relevant in this context is Thomas F. Gieryn’s study ( 1999 ) on the cultural boundaries of science, which he identifies as resulting from professional boundary work. According to Gieryn, boundary work does not represent fixed or institutional demarcations, but is rather a dynamic process of negotiations with contested boarders and regenerated situations of uncertainty. Gieryn stresses that boundaries linked to key concepts such as pure science vary according to special situations and social circumstances. Unlike Gieryn, however, I do not expect that discursive practices revolving around basic research are strategies exclusively used by scientists to protect their professional interests. Moreover, I doubt that the discursive function of basic research can be restricted to boundary work.

In summary, this study is based upon the followings assumptions derived from conceptual history, discourse analysis, and studies on scientific boundary work. The attributions and linked demarcations of basic research are expected to vary according to space and time. Prior semantic dimensions, however, might persist or experience revival. The emergence of basic research as a new term may at least indicate an historical shift in either science or its role in society. The abstractness of the term basic research offers a wide range of meanings and discursive strategies. The concept has the potential to function as a collective symbol for science policy that links different discourses within society. Given its variability, this key concept of science policy, together with its antonyms, cannot be interpreted as representing fixed institutional boundaries. Rather, the concepts seem to emerge in situations of uncertainty or cognitive dissonance. Yet they may legitimize the institutional organization of research or define operative goals. Moreover, the discourses revolving around basic research communicate a wide range of ideals, expectations, promises, as well on professional and public claims.

Finally, there are some preliminary methodological remarks that need to be addressed. Although the study focuses on the concept of basic research, it also has to detect conceptual variations and alternative or concurrent terms, not to mention antonyms. Relevant terms for the US case are basic research, fundamental research, pure science and basic science. Antonyms and concurrent terms like applied research, applied science, contract research and mission-oriented research are included as far as they are needed to analyze the meanings of basic research, but their own conceptual histories will not be analyzed at full length. For the German case, these terms are Grundlagenforschung , reine Wissenschaft , reine Forschung , angewandte Forschung , angewandte Wissenschaft and Zweckforschung .

With regard to conducting the discourse analysis, it was most relevant to compile a broad sample of documents enabling me to identify prevalent, repeated patterns of assertions. Footnote 3 Besides key texts from scientists well-established in research organization, the sample also covers texts produced for normal-science communication. Footnote 4 The study is thus based on published documents relating to science policy as well as on scientific articles and books. Especially the volumes of the American journal Science and its German counterpart Die Naturwissenschaften have been subjected to systematic analysis. Furthermore, electronic search functions, in particular those enabling full-text searches with the keywords listed above, have been most useful for periods in which concepts were not yet commonplace. The digital library of Google Books is an important tool for historical semantics because it enables us to detect texts which might otherwise be overlooked by more traditional research strategies based on library holdings and cross references. As such, Google Books provides a unique tool for tracing both the emergence and diffusion of concepts. However, given that text acquisition in Google Books is dynamic and not entirely transparent to the user, it is difficult to delineate the corpus of books actually contained within its database. Thus Google Books may not be easy to use for scholars interested in exact bibliometric analysis, but it can help researchers gain a rough idea of when certain concepts began to be used and how use of these concepts became more or less common across different periods of time and within different language communities. This is how the current article uses the information derived from Google Books.

Pure Science in the 19th Century: The Natural Sciences and the Philosophical Tradition of Academia

As studies have so far located the concept of basic research in the tradition of pure-science ideals, the following section will deal with the term’s prehistory as a means of tracking continuities and breaks in the way science perceived itself. The notion of pure science and the conceptual opposition between “pure” and “applied” in science can be traced back to the 18th century. The attributes of “pure” and “applied” referred in turn to the much older, classical distinction between theory and practice that had undergone reinterpretation during the Scientific Revolution. Back then, Francis Bacon and his contemporaries had tried to conflate the new empirical and instrumental form of knowledge of nature with the older tradition of natural philosophy and its idea of contemplative understanding (Dear 2005 : 393–397). In the late 18th century, these attributes became important once again for natural scientists positioning themselves within the academic community for the purposes of finding a way into the university system. Although states such as Prussia demanded ever more instrumental knowledge and technical education for their mining industries or other state-owned enterprises (Klein 2010 ), natural scientists had to adjust to the predominant philosophical understanding of science Footnote 5 at universities, which, even then, consisted only of philosophical, theological, legal, and medical faculties.

In the case of chemistry, Christoph Meinel has already demonstrated that, in the Age of Enlightenment, chemists labelled their discipline as “pure and applied” so that chemistry could become an acceptable subject at universities, shedding its older status as an auxiliary science of medicine (Meinel 1985 ). Due to its empirical approach and its utilitarian orientation, chemistry was still classified as an “art” rather than as a “science” in the 18th century. Academic teaching had hitherto focused on imparting theoretical knowledge and established theorems, that is pure science. In contrast, the applied sciences represented experience-based knowledge on the epistemic level; at the same time “applied” denoted research with a practical purpose. Both aspects of these so-called applied sciences did not (yet) fit into the philosophical tradition of universities. By striving to become a part of this academic institution, chemists had to stress both the pure scientific and applied aspects of their discipline (Meinel 1985 ; Bud and Roberts 1984 ).

At the very same time, philosophy was engaged in reviving the controversy between rationalism and empiricism that solidified a hierarchical concept of knowledge. As a consequence of the philosophical longing for the wholeness and absoluteness of ideas, a posteriori approaches continually played a subordinate role in contrast to a priori and metaphysical ways of knowing (Ross 1962 : 68–69). The concept of cognition process in science turned out to be one-way: from the general to the particular. This concept of scientific progress implied the possibility of deducing endless applications and specific, context-linked knowledge from universal principles such as the laws of nature. The advancement of knowledge, however, was not supposed to take place the other way around. This distinction between pure and applied science thus corresponded to institutional and epistemic settings in the scientific community of the late 18th and 19th centuries.

The Natural Sciences Face Challenges from Engineering and Technological Success

In the mid-19th century the pure/applied boundary started focusing on the distinction between the natural sciences and technology. The common definition of technology as applied natural sciences represented a special version of this one-way concept of knowledge. This definition was widespread – even economists believed in the one-way relationship between science and technology. They assumed that only scientific discoveries and theories paved the way for innovations: “Technical science may stimulate pure science to a certain extent, but, on the whole, technology is much more at the receiving end. Pure science is always further ahead of applied science, and never the other way round. However, technology finally turns science into a common good” (Rössler 1857 : 179, translation by DS).

It was above all the community of natural scientists that wanted to preserve the hierarchical distinction between science and technology. The scientific foundation and the aspiring academic status of engineering in the second half of the 19th century challenged the scientific profession, in particular physicists (Gieryn 1999 : 51–62). As the natural sciences had only recently assumed their place within the university, the legacy of natural philosophy and its epistemic and moral ideals, such as the unrewarded dedication to science for its own sake, was even stronger than the century before (Dear 2005 : 401–404). Having scarcely ascended to the league of the pure sciences, the natural sciences even adopted the idea of an eternal truth defined by the discovery of natural laws.

The words of German physician Rudolf Virchow represent this adapted concept of pure science, but, more importantly, they also show that this purity discourse was not without contradictions. With the economic success of technical innovations and the growing appreciation of engineers within society throughout the German Empire, Virchow and his colleagues increasingly forged a link between themselves and the promise of technical progress in order to promote the idea of indispensable scientific endeavour:

All the benefits that have emerged from the steam engine, from telegraphy, photography, chemical discoveries, the production of colours and so on and so forth, all these benefits are based on scientific theorems that we men of science have unveiled, and not until we are absolutely sure that they are laws of nature, we pass these truths on to the general public so that others can work with them and create new things that nobody could imagine before, that no one has ever dreamt of, that see the light of day for the first time and transform the character of society and the state. (Virchow 1877 : 8–9, translation by DS)

Compared with the great engineering inventions of the 19th century and their noticeable effects on everyday life and society as a whole, scientific progress was less visible. In a way, this poor visibility was one aspect of the ideal of the pure scientist in its philosophical tradition: a scholar who, in solitude, dedicates life and work to science, driven by the sole motive of finding the truth – or at least contributing his tiny part to the scientific community’s joint effort – even without any prospect of public acknowledgement. In fact, as Peter Dear put it, “the authority of science in the modern world rests to a considerable extent on the idea that it is powerful, that it can do things” (Dear 2005 : 404). Yet, the scientific strategy of technological promise in order to gain greater visibility, support, and acknowledgment appeared risky; the scientific pledge to technological progress needed a show of confidence. Given the uncertainty and contingency of scientific advancement, it seemed even harder to predict if or when discoveries would lead to new technologies. Scientists thus defined their work as a long-term endeavour in contrast to engineering, which they classified as a medium-term project aimed at satisfying immediate need. In any case, the fact that researchers such as the chemist Justus von Liebig felt it necessary to defend the scientific profession reflects the growing pressure the scientific community faced from societal expectations in the course of the 19th century:

Even the most powerful effect of science on the life and spirit of men is so slow, noiseless, creeping and barely perceptible that a superficial observer would be hard pressed to assess its impact. The expert, however, knows that no real progress in this world is currently achieved without science and that the accusation whereby it is not of public benefit preoccupies the general public and not the men of science, who each in their own way, unwaveringly follow their goals. Indeed, they remain untroubled about the future benefits of their work since these accrue neither to them nor to an individual country but to the whole of mankind. (Liebig 1862 : 33, translation by DS)

Blurring Boundaries in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries: Scientists in Transition

The fact that scientists felt compelled to do boundary work indicates that scientific practice had already begun to change and that the hierarchical epistemic order no longer applied across the board. It was the birth of engineering as an academic discipline that set off this dynamic process of boundary work. By acquiring the right to award doctorates in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the German technical colleges enhanced their academic status (König 1999 ). Leading figures of this new group of aspiring engineers such as Alois Riedler, a mechanical engineer and rector of the Technische Universität Berlin-Charlottenburg from 1899 to 1900, persistently stressed that the relationship between science and technology was a two-way process:

Technology has its natural share in the progress of the natural sciences; in many areas technology has even run ahead of the natural sciences until deeper scientific insights in turn paved the way for perfecting technical development; … [T]hrough the magnificence of its tangible achievements, technology has raised the public’s awareness of the natural sciences and has contributed enormously to making science, in general, more popular. (Riedler 1900 : 12, translation by DS)

Conversely, scientists themselves began to overcome the gap between (pure) science and technology. Related distinctions, for instance, between discovery and invention were also blurring. Within the expanding field of the natural sciences in the late 19th century, researchers had to transcend the limits of both established disciplines and methods in order to find out something new. The development of instruments became, more than ever before, an integral part of scientific work; the act of designing new techniques became as relevant as discovering new elements or laws of nature. The instrumentality of science, not only in terms of its methodological role of confirming theories but also in terms of its effectiveness, had finally become part of the image of the truthfulness of science in the modern world (Wilhelm Ostwald 1929 : 21; Dear 2005 : 404; Joerges and Shinn 2001 ).

Scientists such as the Nobel Prize winner and pioneer of physical chemistry Wilhelm Ostwald campaigned for closer cooperation between scientists and engineers. While criticizing the old supremacy of natural philosophy, he emphasized the similarities of scientific and technological endeavour, in particular a systematic approach to research and to the desire to venture into the unknown (Wilhelm Ostwald 1908 : 20). As far as Ostwald was concerned, scientists and engineers nonetheless differed in terms of their motivations (or goals) and their temporal perspective; having discovered a new technology, engineers abandoned scientific questioning, whereas scientists followed the path to its very end, hoping to find definitive explanations to their questions. Although this notion of the advancement of knowledge was less asymmetric than it had been a few decades earlier, the emphasis Ostwald placed on science’s long-term orientation and the continued ideal of human curiosity as a scientific value in itself demonstrated that a sense of the moral superiority of science endured. (Wilhelm Ostwald 1905 , 1911 ).

While the ideals of pure science were in the process of dissolving, by 1900, both the institutional settings of research and research practices in the natural sciences had already undergone significant change. The emergence of professional industrial laboratories with salaried researchers (initially in the chemical and electrical industry), the establishment of special research institutes outside of the universities (both national laboratories in the service of the state and research centres for specific research fields with mixed funding), the beginning of special funding programmes for science, and the more extensive involvement of the administration in science policy issues were some of the developments in science and in the attitudes within society towards science observable in different countries.

Studies into German science emphasize that two new types of institutes, the Notgemeinschaft der deutschen Wissenschaft (Emergency Association of German Science) and the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft (Kaiser Wilhelm Society), concluded an ongoing process of change in science at an institutional level that had come about in response to the limitations of the former university-centred organization of research and to the new expectations of industrialized mass society (Szöllösi-Janze 2005 ; Ash 2002 : 35–38). Footnote 6 The Kaiser Wilhelm Society, established in 1911 to promote the natural sciences in Germany, was a reaction to the increased requirements of disciplines such as chemistry and physics as well as a response to increasing industrial demand for scientific knowledge and growing international competition. With the financial support of both the state and influential entrepreneurs, scientists in the institutes on material research belonging to the Kaiser Wilhelm Society were able to concentrate their entire efforts on research, that is “pure science”, without needing to undertake teaching duties. The Emergency Association of German Science largely sponsored research projects at the universities. This fund, derived from a variety of sources and governed by academics, had been initiated by scientists after the First World War.

The funding programme Gemeinschaftsforschung (Collaborative Research), which sought to further public health, the economy, and the greater public good, together with the research areas pursued by several institutes belonging to the Kaiser Wilhelm Society provide evidence that the pure-science ideal was becoming less important. These self-governed academic institutions promoted research that responded directly to industrial and political demands. Collaborative Research, for example, financed projects which promised to either secure the production of raw materials or develop substitute materials, to improve material processing or technological development, and to increase food production.

To sum up the whole section, the historical overview from the 19th to the early 20th century shows that the pure-science ideal prevailed until the late 19th century when the cooperation between university scientists and industry started to become closer. The pure-science ideal was a legacy of the long-standing domination of philosophy in academic culture. Having worked hard to earn the status of academic disciplines, it was difficult for the natural sciences to overturn a notion of science that strove for eternal truth while ignoring the technical and economic fruitfulness of research. The fact that natural scientists continued to cling to the philosophical tradition, however, became a point of conflict in the late nineteenth century because the high social esteem enjoyed by the natural sciences was based primarily on their significance for technological innovation and economic success. German science had already begun to adjust to the new role of science in society on an institutional level, the conceptual distinctions between pure and applied science and between science and technology were set to blur in the early 20th century.

Science in the First Half of the 20th Century: Fundamental Research and the Promise of Utility

The scientific purity discourses lost importance around 1900 and new terms began to reshape the notion of science. This semantic shift suggests that the role of science in society had already changed. The German composite noun Grundlagenforschung (fundamental research), Footnote 7 is a relatively young term that first emerged in the early 20th century within a very specific context in the discipline of mathematics (Dingler 1911 : 35; Rulf 1913 ). In the late 19th century, mathematics underwent a disciplinary realignment known as mathematical modernism (Mehrtens 1990 ). German mathematicians played a leading role in this scientific movement, the main goal of which was disciplinary autonomy. The movement’s proponents created a special, self-referential language by freeing the discipline from any metaphysical grounds and providing mathematics with a theoretical framework that denied any reference to reality or other concepts in science and technology and favoured instead an intrinsic, formal logic. Journal articles such as “Mathematische Probleme” by David Hilbert ( 1901 ) delineated a future research programme for mathematics revolving around principal epistemic questions of proof. In summary, modern mathematicians created a new epistemic foundation for their discipline.

Although the role of applied mathematics was an issue for dispute within this reform movement, the term fundamental research was not actually used as an antonym that contrasted to applied mathematics. Within the particular context of mathematics, fundamental research denoted studies that contributed to solving fundamental logical problems like those Hilbert had put on the agenda. Herbert Mehrtens ( 1990 : 149) thus classifies fundamental research as a specific subdiscipline (“ Spezialdisziplin ”) within mathematics. Because this specific meaning was confined to mathematics, the term fundamental research first spread to adjacent disciplines such as philosophy and, in particular, the philosophy of science (Lewin 1922 ). In fact, the German version of fundamental research was not common throughout the 1920s and early 1930s, and the few times the term emerged, it referred mostly to fundamental epistemic questions within disciplines.

In contrast to the German scientific discourse, the English term “fundamental research” emerged slightly earlier and, more importantly, within a different context than in Germany. The English term basic research was initially less prevalent. Roger Pielke has detected a New York Times article from 1919 in which “basic research” emerged in the context of a Congressional hearing on agricultural policy. According to him, the concept was an offspring of the political discourse since its use was restricted to the political arena until the late 1930s (Pielke 2012 : 343). It must be added that “fundamental” and “basic” were, among other things, used as attributes to denote the core academic disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, or chemistry, upon which other disciplines were founded. Thus, fundamental science and basic science meant something completely different to fundamental research or basic research in the English/American context.

The initial use of fundamental research in fields such as plant breeding and technological or industrial research indicates that the term did not emerge from the 19th-century purity discourse. In the 1890s, scientists of agronomy at the American land-grant colleges called for more fundamental research in general aspects of plant physiology in order to continue making progress in plant breeding (Arthur 1895 : 360). Problem- and application-oriented research led them to new questions that “pure” botany had not yet raised. The land-grant colleges were the result of a federal initiative to foster education in agronomy and technology, and to offer higher education to the wider public. As a result of their agricultural focus, these colleges were provided with federally controlled land to establish agricultural experiment stations. Similar to the German technical colleges, the land-grant colleges were not originally on an equal footing with the universities in terms of scientific prestige (Thelin 2004 : 135–137). Yet researchers in these experimental centres faced high public expectations to provide results that could improve farming practices and increase crop yields (Marcus 1985 ).

The demand for more fundamental research expounded one problem: the uncertainty of scientific outcomes, even if a project had a clear task to fulfil right from the start. Given this uncertainty, doing fundamental research meant at least promising to lay a cornerstone for future technologies, new products, or new materials. If research failed to produce new knowledge proving useful, scientists could still legitimise their work via the ideal of pure science, that is the advancement of knowledge as a value in itself. As any reference to the intrinsic ideal of pure science was secondary, it served primarily as a back-up means of legitimisation and only secondarily as a way to claim recognition for applied botany among “pure” scientists. In the end, similar to the German example in engineering, scientists in applied botany declared the distinction between pure and applied science to be invalid: “All science is one. Pure science is often immensely practical, applied science is often very pure science, and between the two there is no dividing line” (Coulter 1917 : 228). Applied botanists called upon science to remain open to everyday needs and problems (Coulter 1919 : 366). Alongside these examples from botany, the term fundamental research can be found very early on in the context of technological and industrial research. Fundamental research denoted any scientific research revolving around basic technical problems with the goal of improving existing technology or, hopefully, developing new technology (Nutting 1917 : 250).

The fact that the concept of fundamental research arose in research fields with an explicit application-orientation reveals that the new term was not a synonym for pure science. Rather, it conveyed the promise that science would produce, sooner or later, useful knowledge. This semantic shift was a response to the growing expectations of science within society and the increasing number of possibilities that scientific research had been able to offer in the development of technology and other societal improvements since the late 19th century. However, researchers and scientists phrased their promise of utility very cautiously; the metaphorical meanings of “fundamental” express the idea that research is the first, but not the only step in a complex process. Hence, the strategic use of the term can be described as twofold: to promise utility and, at the same time, to confine expectations that may be far too high.

With respect to British science policy in the first half of the 20th century, Sabine Clarke ( 2010 ) has already pointed out that fundamental research did not emerge as a synonym for pure science. She shows that in Britain, the new Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, established in 1916, used the term first and foremost to stimulate industrial research. The new ministry was supposed to coordinate and support research that promised economic and social improvement. At first, manufacturers and scientists scarcely welcomed the new grants offered by the Department; according to Clarke, both parties wanted to avoid any kind of governmental interference. Confronted by this industrial opposition, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research advertised long-term research projects dealing with the basic properties of materials or with technical processes with the new term “fundamental research”. In this particular context, the label pure science would have evoked the image of curiosity-driven research without any practical end.

As Clarke demonstrates, the new term can only be understood within its specific institutional and national setting; thus, we should not be too rash to conclude that the findings of the British study also apply to the German case. Furthermore, Robert Kline’s older study ( 1995 ) on the boundary discourse of pure and applied science in the US, which focuses on engineering and its relationship to the natural sciences, suggests that, even in the English-speaking world, the meaning of the term fundamental research varied greatly. According to Kline, the distinction between “pure” and “applied” had only become common in the 1870s, and so the ideal of pure science was a relatively recent phenomenon in the US. Although the demarcation between pure and applied science was becoming blurred in the interwar period, Kline argues that the majority of researchers in engineering eventually adopted the pure-science ideal in order to underscore their scientific capabilities and their growing professional status. Kline’s main argument is that because engineering was unable to assert an autonomous ideal of itself, technological knowledge continued to be subordinated to scientific knowledge in the 20th century. For Kline the new term fundamental research represented a modified ideal of pure science which could also apply to technology. Where engineering is concerned, Kline admits that he is unable to identify a clear strategy of autonomy forming an essential aspect of the traditional notion of pure science.

Nazi Opposition to the Notion of Pure Science

In Germany, the term Grundlagenforschung only became common in the sciences during the late 1930s. Its meanings certainly deviated from the original use of the concept within the context of German mathematics, as well as from the old semantics of pure science. After the scientific purity discourse ran out of steam in the 1920s, the National Socialist German University Lecturers’ League ( Nationalsozialistischer Deutscher Dozentenbund ), which represented the younger generation of lecturers attempting to bring the universities into line with Nazi ideology in particular, fought against the institutional, epistemic, and normative concepts that characterised the ideals of pure science (Nagel 2008 ). The Nazi discourse denounced the 19th-century humanistic notion of academia as a liberal bourgeois ideal that had permanently estranged science and scholarship from the German people.

On a detailed scale, the Nazi discourse criticized the older concept of science as being a selfish project pursued by scientists. This criticism was levelled at the epistemic norm of objective neutrality and the assumption that the natural sciences were unconditional – in particular in terms of the choice of research subjects – thus exposing the notion of pure science as a concept contrived by the ivory tower. Furthermore, Nazi critics blamed the self-referential concept of pure science for causing institutional fragmentation and disciplinary differentiation in science. Continuing the Weimar policy of collaborative research, the Nazi scientific ideal entailed joint efforts by researchers from different institutional and disciplinary backgrounds aimed at solving the problems of the day; problems that were, of course, defined by the politics of the Nazi regime. It is no surprise that the Nazi counter-concept of science quite openly called for a politicization of the academic world – in particular with regard to staff and research policy – and reinterpreted the ideals of universalism, academic freedom, and unity of science in light of the Volksgemeinschaft ideology (the ideology of the community of German people): academic universalism transformed into social universalism, which sought to overcome individual, institutional, and disciplinary interests. The political interpretation of freedom meant that science was in a position to contribute to the German people’s independence from foreign raw materials, in accordance with the Nazi quest for autarky. And lastly, by invoking the older ideal of the unity of science, they legitimized collaborative science, its different disciplines, and its various institutions in order to fulfil national tasks (Henkel 1933 ; Krieck 1933 ; Löhr 1938 ; W. Schultze 1938 ).

Research in Nazi Germany: Between Four-Year Plans and Long-Term Science Policy

In light of the official campaign against the old pure-science ideal at the beginning of the Nazi regime, the use of fundamental research in the late 1930s can hardly be understood as a new version of pure science presenting the search for knowledge of nature and truth both as an a priori goal of research and a value in itself. The terms Grundlagenforschung and Zweckforschung (goal-oriented research) gained hold as political efforts to acquire control over academic and industrial research increased. In 1937, the Nazi regime established a research council, the Reichsforschungsrat (Reich Research Council), which was responsible for funding research. During the war, the Research Council was directly responsible to the Army Ordnance Office (Flachowsky 2008 : 232–462).

The Research Council’s first president, military general and professor of army technology Karl Becker, defined fundamental research as science that could not be “commanded and accelerated”. He guaranteed, therefore, that “as far as researchers and facilities in the institutions [for fundamental research] in question offer even some guarantee of success”, there would be no interference from the Research Council (Becker 1937 : 26). Becker made particular mention of the various institutions for aeronautical research and the institutes of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, promising to abstain from exerting any control over these institutions in light of their close relationships to industry. Goal-oriented research, which was meant to be built on fundamental research, was to fit into the schedule of the four-year plan. In this context, goal-oriented research denoted first and foremost industrial research leading to the development of advanced technology. Against the backdrop of the four-year plan, the Nazi regime demanded that industry give complete insight into its research activities (Becker 1937 : 25, 27).

In 1940, the Illustrierte Zeitung , a well-established illustrated magazine published in Leipzig, devoted an entire issue to the topic of German research in the service of the people in order to present Nazi science policy. The magazine included articles from leading scientists such as the biochemist and Noble Prize winner Adolf Butenandt, journalists specializing in scientific topics such as Hans Hartmann Footnote 8 , and ministry officials (No. 4956, 22 August 1940). To some extent, the issue was a response to continuing foreign criticism of the way the Nazis had incorporated German academia into National Socialism (Rust 1940 ; Hartmann 1940 ). Completely ignoring criticism of racist staffing policy, the articles presented a concept of science that responded to the needs of society without compromising scientists’ research freedom. “The freedom of research would not be endangered when the state ensures that state-funded institutes are given the task of conducting fundamental research in order to solve problems within the national economy” (Krauch 1940 : 122, translated by DS).

The articles, however, also addressed German scientists on the question of how a more utility-oriented research affected its institutional setting. The issue of organizing science in order to quickly achieve societal and technological progress without duplicating efforts in both academic and industrial research had already been under discussion within the paradigm of rationalisation prior to the Nazi’s seizure of power. From the late 19th century onwards, industry conducted more and more research in its own laboratories, and the good salaries attracted talented researchers. The future role of universities as training and research institutions and the initial division of labour between academic and industrial research thus became a vital question of science policy. Furthermore, the changing research practices also led to an organizational discussion about individual or team research. The terms fundamental research and goal-oriented research were part of these ongoing negotiations (Krauch 1941 : 2; Brüche 1944 : 114–115; Stadlinger 1944 : 227, 229; Verein Deutscher Chemiker 1943 ; Drescher-Kaden 1941 : 10, 16–17).

Overall, the articles in this special issue sought mainly to demonstrate to the public how German scientists, whose work was less visible, contributed to the nation during war time. Authors such as Butenandt tried to explain their ongoing experimental work in terms of both its meaning for society and its potential impact to a wider lay audience (Butenandt 1940 ). Following the initial hostility demonstrated by Nazi ideology towards the academic elite and elitist institutions such as the academies of sciences, this issue of the Illustrierte Zeitung promoted science wholesale by emphasizing that it was necessary for society to support research.

Within the natural sciences up to 1939, the new term “fundamental research” was rarely used and did not yet have an established, fixed set of meanings. In physics, for example, fundamental research could denote theoretical physics or, alternatively, it referred to the older distinction between the natural sciences and technology (Reichenbächer 1937 : 285; Hiedemann 1939 : V, 1). Despite this semantic variation, the strategic uses of the new term in most of the disciplines bore some resemblance to one another when it came down to combining the term with goal-oriented research. It is striking that as the term fundamental research became more widespread after 1939, scientists tended to mention Grundlagenforschung and Zweckforschung in the same breath (Witzell 1944 : 212–217). In fact, the term fundamental research emerged in the natural and technical sciences mainly when the individual field of research was close to application or demonstrated promise for military, economic, and political aims. This was the case, for instance, with innovations in weaponry and military strategy, maintaining public health, ensuring food supply, rationalizing the production and use of raw materials, inventing substitute materials, and encouraging industrial production. In the humanities, the term fundamental research was still less common. This observation leads us to the question of whether the use of the two terms really worked as a boundary discourse.

Interdisciplinary research fields, such as forestry, represented a utility-oriented notion of science in the first place. In the case of forestry, research promised more profitable cultivation and effective technical treatment of the raw material wood. Germany’s rise as a colonial power in the late nineteenth century had already transformed forestry into a politically and economically significant discipline, fostered since by the German state. In the Nazi war economy, the issue of raw materials, and with it the supply of wood, gained even greater importance (Steinsiek 2008 ). In this disciplinary context, fundamental research and goal-oriented research represented two equivalent sub-areas of forestry: one that studied the nature of the substance wood, and one that analyzed its material properties and the effects of technical treatment. The overall goal of both research fields was to acquire knowledge about the optimal use for the raw material wood (Runkel 1942 : 305–306). Footnote 9

The majority of scientists defined fundamental research as pursuing fundamental questions of nature, its substances, and its processes. This contrast to goal-oriented research still adhered to the old demarcation between nature, on the one hand, and society and its relationship to natural resources, on the other. But questions about nature, labelled by scientists as fundamental research in the late 1930s and 1940s, arose within the context of technical and practical problems (Kaiser Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften 1939 : 322; Hoffmann and Suhr 1944 : 550), that is in applied science disciplines such as aeronautics, armament, forestry, plant breeding, and nutrition.

In the majority of cases, scientists simply stressed the necessity of both fundamental research and goal-oriented research, in other words, the general necessity of research for any kind of progress. This is where the views of the scientific community converged with the goals of Nazi economic policymakers, who were aware that the US and British governments were providing massive support to research for economic and military purposes (Krauch 1939 ). When it came to clearly defining terminology in this period, scientists surprisingly described fundamental research as the study of nature, devoid of any concrete notion of how it might be applied in terms of technology or societal utility. Yet having just drawn a distinction between utility-oriented research and research driven simply by the urge for knowledge, scientists immediately strove to emphasize that limiting fundamental research was not possible in terms of research practice and its institutional settings, whether in industry, in universities, or in other research institutions (Bauermeister 1938 ; Wolfgang Ostwald 1942 : 130–131; Niemeier 1944 : 106–107). Moreover, the distinction between fundamental research and goal-oriented research was often criticized as misleading because it suggested that fundamental research was far removed from any notion of useful application (Zenneck 1944 : 10; Endell 1942 : 113; Wolfgang Ostwald 1942 : 130–131).

These definitions must be seen as a vestige of patterns characterizing scientists’ former understanding of science. However, one question remains unanswered: if this differentiation of research types appeared to have little consequence for the scientific community, why did scientists introduce new terminology that could be understood as part of a dichotomy and that, moreover, was reminiscent of former boundary discourses? As the use of the term fundamental research was prevalent in engineering as well as in those research fields in chemistry, physics, biology, and geography that responded, in particular, to the concrete needs of the economy and the political regime, the intention was hardly to reactivate either the old demarcation between science and technology or the ideal of science for its own sake. The fact that new terms emerged reveals two things. Firstly, under the Nazi regime the scientific community felt the need to renegotiate the conditions under which science and research were conducted. Secondly, the old concepts of science no longer fit with existing practices in science.

The term fundamental research was fresh; Zweckforschung , which was highly unusual in the natural sciences until the mid 1930s, was even more so. Footnote 10 In fact, the latter only gained importance during the Nazi period. Some scientists explicitly considered goal-oriented research as a temporary focus of science responding to a situation of national emergency. In 1936, the chemist Wolfgang Ostwald, son of Wilhelm Ostwald and former president of the Kolloid-Gesellschaft (Colloid Society), stated that “[o]ver the last years, much has been said about so-called ‘Zweckforschung’. It means the entirety of efforts to draw more extensively than usual on scientific research for solving major economic problems” (Kolloid-Gesellschaft 1936 : 159, translation by DS). To be precise, the term goal-oriented research was spreading at the very same time that the creation of the new government administration in 1937, the Reich Research Council, institutionalised the four-year plan. This new authority and the second four-year plan that ensued broadened the field of activities in which science henceforth was understood as an important prerequisite for economic progress. Thus, in contrast to free research, goal-oriented research meant target-oriented research according to the goals of the four-year plan (Bachér 1937 ; Willing 1937 ). Footnote 11

In order to explain the emergence of this new scientific nomenclature, it is most revealing to look at the chronology governing the spread of new terms. With the foundation of the new Reich Research Council ( 1937 ), which claimed to bring German research efficiently into line with Nazi policies, some scientists were concerned about the future funding of fundamental research (Bauermeister 1938 : 476). It would be misleading to interpret this plea for fundamental research as a struggle for freedom of science that ignored the expectations of society in favour of absolute professional independence; the concerns expressed do not reveal an objection to the idea that science should serve political aims or national tasks. Yet the scientists’ worries certainly revolved around the question of how to govern science. The concern was, in fact, that scientific knowledge as a resource for innovation might dwindle in the long run. It can be described as an argument of knowledge sustainability meaning that knowledge will run short if scientists and policymakers align knowledge production exclusively with immediate needs. Within this sustainability discourse, fundamental research represented the experiences that, firstly, scientific progress was often unexpected and, secondly, that even the research output that sought practical solutions was unpredictable and needed time before its application was possible. According to these researchers, science had to conquer new ground deemed necessary for the long-term advancement of technology. Only a few scientists actually recognized the semantic shift in scientific nomenclature and criticized the new term fundamental research for constraining science to technological ends (Richter 1943 : 207).

The reference to the long-term and unpredictable nature of scientific research was, of course, not new. Back in the 19th century, this had already served as an argument in the science-technology boundary discourse. Yet it was not until the 20th century that this aspect of scientific and technological progress became an everyday experience in many fields of research. The problem of how to find the right balance between venturing into the unknown and, at the same time, abiding by a research policy that sought to keep the aims of research in its sights had been under discussion in the 1920s, in particular within the context of industrial research. Faced by the Nazi Regime’s four-year plan and the increasing pressure of the expectations on science during the war, it became even more important for researchers to communicate to the regime that their work contributed to political aims, even if they were unable to guarantee any immediate success.

The argument that research had its own temporal logic was also present in research fields devoid of a science-technology nexus. In 1943, Joachim H. Schultze, professor of geography in Jena, expressed the belief that science ought to be one step ahead of the demands of the day. He defined fundamental research as “general research regardless of its practical application and regardless of the benefits of everyday life” (J. H. Schultze 1943 : 197). He described research in geography as the task of depicting the overall research areas in the discipline, which included topics as diverse as the earth’s surface, landscapes, and the cultural and demographic depiction of countries. The central aim of Schultze’s article was not, however, to protect a self-referential concept of science, but rather to praise the utility of geography in general as well as the research carried out thus far for the purpose of warfare. Referring to historical examples of the huge political and economic interest in geography, Schultze argued that science, rather than being left to its own devices, needed both a societal mission and interest from the public. He advocated the idea of a central German geographical institute which would carry out fundamental and goal-oriented research for the state and for economic purposes. Schultze called for the combination of fundamental and goal-oriented research for an epistemic reason: research needs time and the future utility of scientific outcomes is not foreseeable as readily as future societal needs (J. H. Schultze 1943 : 201). Thus, the term fundamental research stood for sustainable knowledge with potential benefit, or a sort of stock of knowledge (Ziegelmayer 1936 : 253; Stock 1938 : 150–151; Brüche 1944 : 113).

The Discursive Strategy of Fundamental Research and the Reassessment of German Science in the Nazi Period

Over the last decade, German science and its research endeavours under National Socialism have undergone a historical re-evaluation, namely within two major projects on the history of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation). The focus has shifted to some extent from the effects of Nazi ideology and the participation of the humanities, anthropology, and medicine in racist and eugenic policies, to the hard and technical sciences that contributed to the military and economic goals of the Nazi regime. Whereas former studies stressed the negative effects of Nazi science policy, such as, the international isolation of the German scientific community, the experience of being cut off from raw materials required by the experimental sciences and the focus on substitute research as a result of a policy of autarky, and, since 1933, the incredible loss of excellent researchers as a result of racist science policy, recent studies present a more differentiated picture of science under the Nazi regime when focusing on research output and technical innovation.

Despite the regulatory claims of the Reich Research Council and the German Research Foundation’s loss of autonomy, recent studies show that researchers were still able to shape research policy according to their own interests. Provided that researchers showed a political affinity to the Nazi regime, scientific reputation and peer review continued to define the allocation of research funding (Flachowsky 2010 ). In particular after 1942, the year in which the Reich Research Council was reorganized and military technical equipment assumed greater importance in the German war effort, it appears that the regulatory claims of German research policy finally gave way to a more efficiency-oriented policy. As Mitchell Ash puts it, normal science existed throughout the Nazi period (Ash 2006 : 34–35).

In this reassessment of German science and scholarship, the question of whether Nazi science policy led to a shift in focus from Grundlagenforschung (fundamental research) to angewandte Forschung (applied research) plays a crucial role. Recent studies provide evidence that fundamental research and applied research did not work as clearly demarcated, transdisciplinary, and supertemporal categories. Current studies on the history of the natural sciences during the Nazi period attest to a continuity of – what they call – fundamental research. Some studies suggest that German professors adjusted to the new conditions by combining applied research that accorded to political and economic requirements with fundamental research that earned greater appreciation within the scientific community in their projects. Although full professors apparently still honoured the ideal of pure science, most of them had contact with industry as individual consultants and/or via collaboration. Other studies identify fundamental research in especially applied contexts such as armament and defence research, but also in economically promising research fields such as metals research and polymer chemistry (Luxbacher 2010 ; Erker 2010 ; Flachowsky 2010 ; Epple 2002 : 318–322). In the case of metals research, Günter Luxbach differentiates between research on the composition of metal, which was labelled as fundamental research, and research that tested the technical properties of metals, which was known as applied research. In contrast to this classical distinction between the quest for knowledge of nature and the quest for technological progress, Paul Erker describes polymer chemistry as a discipline that strove to combine these two motives. Erker employs the label of basic research for a heterogeneous and innovative research policy. Thus the meaning of fundamental research differs in historical studies on the natural sciences, not least because these studies investigate different disciplines.

By countering older historical interpretations that see German science in decline since its political instrumentalization in 1933, the main thrust of these recent contributions is, of course, that the Nazi’s war and policy of autonomy did not cause the profile of academic research to change overall. The insight that fundamental research went hand-in-hand with goal-oriented research is a novelty only if we analyse science on the premise that basic and applied research constitute two fundamentally different forms of research. Most of the historians quoted above still do not question the distinction between basic and applied research. The long-established categories still appear to be so self-evident that these authors do not feel obliged to define them explicitly for the specific research fields upon which they focus. Moreover, most of them still fail to reflect on how scientists employed terms such as Grundlagenforschung and Zweckforschung during the Nazi period.

Only a few of these historians have reconsidered their analytic vocabulary in light of new evaluations of the Nazi period. Moritz Epple, for instance, no longer believes in the opposition of the terms basic and applied. As in recent propositions in the philosophy of science, he suggests that we should speak of application-oriented fundamental research within the context of Nazi science (Epple 2010 : 213). Another interpretation suggests that as German professors were increasingly involved in applied research, the use of the term fundamental research was merely symbolic, for the purpose of scientific reputation (Wagner 2010 : 26–27, 33). Surprisingly, semantic sensibility is on the rise when it comes to discussing the aftermath of the Second World War. Within this context, the use of the term fundamental research is more often identified as a simply rhetorical strategy deployed by German scientists in order to retrospectively downplay their involvement in the Nazi system. Carola Sachse argues that this strategy of moral relief also worked in the American context: it was supposed to dispel fear of German post-war science (Sachse 2010 : 480).

So far, this analysis of the first half of the 20th century has shown that the new terms fundamental and basic research initially emerged in mission-oriented or technical research fields. In Germany the concept only gained importance since the 1930s when research had to meet high political expectations. With regard to the historical context of the Nazi regime, the results suggest that the interpretation of a simply rhetorical strategy, whether as a strategy of individual moral relief or as a professional strategy for protecting a scientist’s guaranteed freedoms, is not entirely convincing. Because many German scientists demonstrated their commitment to the Nazi regime by offering their research services, the terms fundamental research did not serve to protect the old intrinsic ideal of science. In a period when the political expectations placed on science were high, the terms expounded instead the experience that scientific progress and procedures leading to exploitable results were difficult to predict.

From Knowledge Sustainability to Purity Discourse: US Science Policy Between the Second World War and the Cold War Period

As the rise of basic research as a pivotal keyword in science policy during the post-war era was not peculiar to Germany, it is now time for a more comparative perspective. Although the two terms fundamental and basic research had gained greater currency throughout the 1930s in US science and, more generally, in science throughout the English-speaking world than had the term Grundlagenforschung in German science, they had not yet spilled over into all the different disciplines. Footnote 12 Analysis of the journal Science demonstrates that, at that time, the use of these terms was still limited to biology (agriculture as well as studies on vitamins and proteins, which attracted pharmaceutical companies, also employed these terms), industrial research, and engineering. Once again, the terms denoted long-term studies focusing on fundamental problems in biology, chemistry, or physics emerging within the context of technical and application-related questions. The term fundamental research did not constitute an antonym to applied research; it was not part of a boundary discourse. In 1942, the research administrator of the US Department of Agriculture described basic research as follows:

In all these cases, either basic research precedes the practical applications of science, or a certain amount of this kind of research is found to be necessary somewhere along the line to clear-up obscurities that block further progress. … the point I am making is that in research there is no single road to practical results. If we keep our eyes constantly and exclusively on what seem to be immediate needs, we miss some of the richest fruits of scientific work – the fruits that grow from the discovery of important fundamental facts. … The emphasis I have given to basic research and freedom of inquiry does not mean that we should pay any less attention than we do to homely experimentation directed toward solving everyday problems. (Auchter 1942 : 287, 288)

In the case of engineering, the concept of fundamental research largely represented the ongoing process of the scientification of technology (Gibb 1937 : 233–234; Jewett 1944 ). Institutes such as the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research at the University of Philadelphia, which defined itself as a link between science and technology (or in the words of Edward Weidlein “between the world of science and the industry”), used the term fundamental research as a general label for their projects and training (Weidlein 1935 : 562).

In light of these examples, the argument that the new concepts reflected the increasing expectation that science should be beneficial to the economy and to society as a whole also applies to the US case. Scientists were aware of the epistemic and institutional challenges to research that the 20th century brought forth. As a result of the increasing commercial potential of fundamental research, patents became a major issue at US universities quite early on. In contrast to the German universities, where the right to hold patents appeared to be considered part of the individual academic freedom of German professors (at least until the rise of the Nazi reign), Footnote 13 the American land-grant colleges introduced patent regulations as early as the 1920s. Nevertheless, the administrative, legal, and ethical problems of patenting within institutions of higher education remained a controversial issue over the next few years (Potter 1940 ).

After dealing bit-by-bit with the shifting situation of science in the early 20th century, the Second World War marked an incisive and formative experience for the scientific community. When the US entered the war, the national mobilisation of science acquired the same level of importance there as in the other warring countries. In the early 1940s, the US debate on the effects of wartime revolved first and foremost around financial redistribution in science. The US universities, which depended mostly on private donations, were considered to be the losers in this process. In 1941, the long-standing idea of a federal fund that aimed to guarantee research funding on a regular and permanent basis was reignited. Although the financial crisis of the American universities had begun earlier during the Great Depression and bore several failed attempts to secure federal support for academic research (K. T. Compton 1934 ; Geiger 1986 : 246–255), proponents of this initiative blamed the war for worsening the financial situation of the universities and diagnosed a crisis in fundamental research (Blakeslee 1941 ).

Those advocating federal support argued that a new form of funding was necessary because research in the basic sciences, that is in basic disciplines such as physics or chemistry, laid the indispensable foundation for future benefits: “We are all familiar with the material conveniences and comforts which science has given us, but we often forget the original patient, fundamental research which made them possible and will be the basis for future advances” (Robbins 1941 : 8). As the concept of fundamental research had thus far denoted only research with a clear reference to application, the novelty here was the fact that the supporters of such a fund classified the entire endeavour of academic research at universities as fundamental research. Moreover, the lack of financial support for the universities was in opposition to the better funding of industrial and governmental research, which was only supposed to favour research that could demonstrate the prospect of immediate benefits (Robbins 1941 ).

From Wartime to Peacetime: Vannevar Bush’s Plans for Transforming Science Policy

During the war, scientists had discussed the future conditions of science (Science 1942 ). At the end of the war, plans for a new science policy were already on the table. In the literature on research and development policy, funding for basic research and the dissociative model of basic and applied research in the post-war era are still inseparably linked to the name Vannevar Bush (Braun-Thürmann et al. 2010 : 17). The MIT professor for electrical engineering served as presidential science adviser and, in particular, as chairman of the National Defense Research Committee and director of its successor organization, the Office of Scientific Research and Development. While coordinating the American military research programmes, including the Manhattan Project (the project devoted to constructing the atomic bomb), he began to make plans for a federal peacetime science policy. Based on the negotiations of four scientific committees (a Medical Advisory Committee, a Committee on Science and the Public Welfare, a Committee on Discovery and Development of Scientific Talent, and a Committee on Publication of scientific Information), in July 1945, Bush presented guidelines for future governmental promotion of scientific activity in the natural sciences and in medicine to the public. As well as providing financial support for academic research and junior scientists in the natural sciences, the proposals encompassed a reform of patent law and tax incentives for industrial research, the promotion of medical research, the plea for open science by fostering international exchange and strategies of declassification, and, finally, the sponsorship of basic research on military matters. Bush’s report “Science—The Endless Frontier” essentially sought to institutionalize federal science policy on a permanent basis (Bush 1945 ).

We should interpret his draft against the background of the war experience. The Second World War had demonstrated, once again, the importance of research for society and the fast-growing need for scientific knowledge. During the war, scientists and engineers had found that the search for technical innovation in the service of national defence spawned new questions and new problems for the natural sciences, the implication of which was long-term research. Given the immense expectations concerning immediate results within the context of warfare, some scientists feared that researchers would no longer be able to meet the demand of new knowledge for technical development (Simons 1943 : 391). Despite the achievements made during the war, researchers warned of an exhaustion and future shortage of scientific knowledge: only by exploiting existing knowledge, they claimed, had it been possible to invent penicillin and radar, two of research’s major wartime success stories. In other words, there was a fear that the equilibrium between the production of scientific knowledge and its application would be disturbed (Bush 1945 : 5, 8). The argument of knowledge sustainability thus became also important within the US community of scientists facing the war-time conditions of research.

This scarcity anxiety also applied to personnel resources in science (Barton and Burnham 1943 : 176; H. S. Taylor 1944 : 250). Bush’s report criticized the fact that, due to radical recruitment practices, the shortage of scientific personnel in the US was greater than in other countries (Bush 1945 : 19). Bush’s colleagues, such as the Nobel Prize winner Arthur H. Compton, believed that the training situation and the support afforded to fundamental research Footnote 14 at the universities were even worse in the US than in Germany (A. H. Compton 1945 : 208). A lack of scientifically trained researchers also posed a problem for science-based industry. Thus the four committees suggested programmes for fostering scientific talent that included the generation in uniform returning from the war, particularly through doctoral fellowships for basic research.

In spite of this crisis and the discourse of epistemic and personnel shortage, wartime research efforts had, after all, strengthened the position of science in society. As the US government had spent more money on science throughout the course of the Second World War than ever before (Bush 1945 : 82), scientists had a particular interest in perpetuating this federal commitment to science in peacetime. Since the US were traditionally characterized by less state intervention and a scientific infrastructure based largely on philanthropy and private donations, the federal support for academic research and training had been much lower than in Germany or in other European countries. It thus became necessary to legitimize the regular government funding envisioned through science’s role in the overall welfare of the nation. The Bush report justified the government’s obligation to support basic research in three ways. Firstly, medical research would improve public health. Secondly, research would advance the overall public welfare, which was almost synonymous with economic growth and job security due to innovations and new products. And finally, long-term civilian research promised to give the US a technological edge in armaments which was supposed to guarantee national security. Only then did basic research become a real keyword in research funding. And the metaphor of “basic” did the trick; by laying the basics for all kinds of future benefits, the federal government financed basic research as for the common good.

Bush’s proposal also reacted to the organizational conditions of wartime research, in particular with regard to security restrictions. The problem of secrecy policy had already been discussed openly during the war (K. T. Compton 1942 : 28). Bush’s report called for the prompt release of classified research after the war. This request also involved a secrecy strategy in which projects were split up into small, isolated research groups, each of which worked on a specialised problem without the opportunity for any kind of exchange between them. Footnote 15 It is worth mentioning that the work on these specialized problems within isolated research groups was sometimes denoted as fundamental or basic research during the war (Simons 1943 : 392), which indicates that Bush’s use of the term deviated from the former understanding. In order to near the ideal of open science once again, Bush believed that the federal government was also obliged to encourage publication, international communication, and cooperation following the war. In general, the report restricted the role of federal science policy to financial support and the provision of coordinating infrastructure (Bush 1945 : 22–24). Bush sought to prevent the government and the military from continuing to pursue the managerial approach to science policy they had applied in wartime. Bush criticized the military leadership for being too narrow-minded, a characteristic that did not fit with his understanding of the speculative and multidimensional nature of research (Reingold 1987 : 338–341). Failed attempts to establish federal research funding had already demonstrated that the majority of the scientific community disapproved of any governmental intervention in science (Geiger 1986 : 255).

Other scientists shared with Bush the rising concerns over free scientific exchange toward the end of the war (H. S. Taylor 1944 : 255; Jewett 1944 : 3), but Bush’s report was the first to link the relatively new notion of basic research with an institutional guarantee of scientific autonomy in such a close fashion. This also included his contrasting juxtaposition of basic research with applied research and development. By then, applied research had not been an antonym to basic research. Basic research thus not only meant that science should be freed from the burden of high expectations tied to immediately exploitable results; it also entailed the freedom of both inquiry and scientific communication. The different agendas and arguments – the strengthening of US universities as research and training institutions, the switch from war to peace, and attracting federal support for science in the name of national welfare – converged in the report’s recommendation to enhance the universities and non-profit research institutions as centres of basic research.

Following the release of the report, US scientists, politicians, and industry representatives entered into controversial discussions on various aspects of Bush’s proposals, which delayed the establishment of the National Science Foundation for nearly five years. The patent issue, the suggestion that the social sciences be excluded from federal support, the uneven distribution of excellent research universities in the individual states coupled with the corresponding problem of how to fairly allocate federal funding, and, finally, the envisioned scientific expertocracy within the federal foundation proved to be particularly delicate subjects. Bush’s proposal faced opposition, in particular from the military, liberal and democrat activists, and even from scientific colleagues. At the universities, which stood to benefit most from the funding, some scientists considered the plea for basic research as restricting their funding and research habits, which included contract research for industry or the army. There is no need to go into the details of this debate here since a mass of literature has already revealed these conflicting institutional interests and the political dimension of the controversy on science policy in the early years following the Second World War (Kevles 1977 ; Reingold 1987 ; Owens 1994 ; Zachary 1997 : 218–239, 249–260; Guston 2000 ; Dennis 2004 ). Most interpretations allude to Bush’s political conservatism aiming at the restoration of the pre-war political order. More generally speaking, studies on post-war research policy have so far presented a mainly political reading of these debates, which essentially revolved around the issue of more or of less intervention of the federal government into research. Even Roger Pielke’s ( 2012 ) current interpretation confines the concept basic research to this political dimension: in his view, the symbolic capacity of the term accommodated the conflicting parties, striving for the organization of science by the federal government on the one side and the autonomous organization of research by scientists on the other side, by promising potential utility.

What this analysis can add to the previous literature is a more nuanced interpretation of the conflicts within the scientific community. I argue that the scientific controversy over Bush’s “Endless frontier” partly stemmed from differences or even misunderstandings in the semantics of basic research. Although Bush developed the concept from the common discourse on knowledge sustainability, he added new semantic dimensions that had to meet multiple requirements of a new funding programme. In what follows, I demonstrate how the various problems in research organization and the overall political climate during the Cold-War period were turning this sustainability discourse by and by into a purity discourse.

Bush’s Definition of Basic Research: The Beginning of a History of Misconceptions?

Bush’s report marked a semantic shift in basic research that made a clear break with existing practices and notions in order to reorganize research in the post-war period. His specific use of the concept of basic research thus gave rise to misunderstandings and confusion. Moreover, the history of basic research in the second half of the 20th century has been characterized, in part, by these misunderstandings, which in the long run evoked anachronisms over which science and technology studies are still puzzling today. Bush’s short definition of basic research as “research performed without thought of practical ends” (Bush 1945 : 13), still singled out by most studies (Stokes 1997 : 116; Godin 2005b : 265; Popp Berman 2012 : 21), definitely contradicted the original understanding of basic/fundamental research in the context of application. Even more so, this reduction fails to represent the conceptual range of basic research in the report and the wider debates that took place right after the war.

Bush’s definitions of research, science, and applied science confused his peers and even one of his closest companions James Conant, who reflected critically on the new conceptual boundaries (Conant 1948 ). Representatives of national or military laboratories felt particularly compelled to argue against an institutional separation of basic and applied research. A member of the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, for instance, argued that “the naval laboratory programmes make it necessary for us to carry on basic research in certain parts of certain fields simply because no other agency is interested in, or has the facilities for, doing this work” (Bennett 1946 ). Bush’s peers in engineering were certainly confused by the different ways of denoting basic research. Universities specializing in the applied sciences and engineering, such as the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), understood basic research – inseparable from the overall pragmatic goal of inventing new technology – as an integral part of modern engineering (DuBridge 1959 : 109–110).

Following the publication of “Endless frontier”, scientists and other policymakers tried to differentiate and redefine the concept of basic research, which indicates that Bush’s understanding of basic research was not taken for granted and that researchers struggled with it because it did not fit the existing research landscape. John Steelman, science adviser to President Truman, for instance, divided basic research into two subcategories: firstly, fundamental research defined as “theoretical analysis … directed to the extension of knowledge of the general principles governing natural or social phenomena”, and secondly, “background research” defined as “systematic observation, collection, organization, and presentation of facts using known principles to reach objectives that are clearly defined before the research is undertaken to provide a foundation for subsequent research” (Steelman 1947a : 6). Others tried to introduce a distinction between “fundamental research, which leads to an understanding of the laws of nature, the discovery of new facts and laws, and the theoretical development”, and “basic research as it applies to industrial or military development involving basic studies of the fruits of fundamental work to determine their potentialities antecedent to application” (Leob 1946 : 540). An industrial researcher defined basic research as an intermediate category, which he located between pure research as “inquiry after knowledge for its own sake” and applied research as “the investigation carried out in response to immediate, direct, and obvious needs” (Spaght 1955 : 785). The gradual emergence of new variations such as “mission-oriented basic research” indicates, at least, that the criterion of intention, whether utility-oriented or not, became problematic in the long run (Tuve 1959 : 174; Kistiakowsky 1966 : 18).

While all these redefinitions can be interpreted as a claim to reintegrate application goals into the concept of basic research, Bush himself actually did not exclude the idea of mission-oriented research. Nathan Reingold sees “the pursuit of new knowledge” – and not the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake – as the real core of Bush’s notion of basic research. Reingold further refines his interpretation by quoting Bush’s argument that “there is no specification as to whether the knowledge is or is not of direct utility” (Reingold 1987 : 305). That sheds a very different light on the story of basic research. The importance of new scientific knowledge becomes even clearer if we take into account Bush’s metaphor of “the endless frontier”, which emphasized the cutting-edge role of scientific research. It thus placed scientific problems at the border of the unknown, reflecting the uncertainty of scientific outcomes and their long lead time in a world increasingly reliant upon scientific progress. Not least, Bush’s outline for a federal funding programme entailed financial support for basic research (long-range scientific research) on military matters.

Nevertheless, some of Bush’s contemporaries interpreted the report as an attempt to return to the old intrinsic ideal of pure science. They criticized the report for favouring a selfish notion of scientific autonomy that did not respond to any societal or economic needs (Shepard 1946 ). Footnote 16 My analysis thus far reveals that the discursive strategy of basic research initially aimed to acquire regular financial support from the government by promising utility in spite of the uncertainty of scientific research. This happened to conform to the interests of the scientific profession, so long as this support did not affect the ideal of open science. In the long run, however, the allegation of a return to an ancient pure-science ideal proved to be true. As the promotion of basic research continued, the sustainability discourse was transformed into a purity discourse, which revealed aspects of a past notion of science deemed to have been superseded in the 20th century.

After having become the spearhead of scientific endeavour, surprisingly enough American researchers looked back towards continental Europe. Post-war proposals for higher education in the US idealized the European university system and its humanistic tradition by associating it with democracy (Bender 1997 : 4–5). The old model of the European research university and its success story in basic disciplines such as physics and chemistry became a role model. According to Bush’s report, the arguments for reinvigorating the university within an increasingly pluralistic research landscape were twofold: immense need for scientifically trained researchers and the demand for scientific autonomy.

American scientists had repeatedly commented on the short-sighted focus of armaments research and on the threat Hitler’s regime implied for the freedom of science, presenting the liberal democratic order as the only safeguard for the fundamental principles of science (Fosdick 1934 : 380; Simons 1943 : 392; Goudsmit 1947 : XI). The debates on lessons to be drawn from the war experience, however, demonstrate that American scientists were chiefly worried about the threat to scientific freedom with regard to their own national conditions (H. S. Taylor 1944 : 255; Goudsmit 1947 : 232–246). Bush’s report blamed previous federal policy – from the Morill Land-Grant Colleges Act to the more recent practice of contract research – for being primarily interested in immediate benefits. The report argued that, due to an alleged inclination towards more utility-based research, the American nation depended entirely on the European production of new scientific knowledge (Bush 1945 : 2; see also Astin 1959 : 146–147).

By reproaching the societal and governmental focus on the utility of science, Bush’s sustainability argument was just about to tilt over towards the purity ideal of science. This explains why some scientists initially reclaimed the application aspect of research. The related aspect of academic autonomy, however, met with the approval of most scientists. Aside from the politicians supporting a science policy agency like the Democrat Harley M. Kilgore ( 1945 : 636), only a few scientists argued frankly against the anxiety about governmental interference by pointing out that the increasing social and economic demand for scientific research and the necessary political coordination of research in response to these needs were facts which scientists in the 20th century had to accept (Dunn 1945 ). Although the final establishment of the National Science Foundation turned out to be a compromise for all parties having negotiated this new form of federal science funding, Bush’s altered definition of basic research, in the end, became accepted.

At the end of the 1950s, after the National Science Foundation had been operating for several years, scientists continued to criticize the low federal base rate for basic research in comparison to that of contract research in the Department of Defense, which was twice as high (Elvehjem 1959 : 94; Waterman 1959 : 26–27). Some deployed the sophisticated argument that many projects were not truly basic research, but actually mission-directed basic research. In fact, the Korean War had meanwhile intensified the Cold War conflict and the Soviet’s launch of the Sputnik satellite turned the ideological competition between West and East into a science and technology race (Tuve 1959 : 173–176). As a consequence, basic research stood primarily for federally financed academic research – with or without any concept of practical use.

From the outset, the various drafts of the documents formally establishing the National Science Foundation included fellowships for graduates and junior scientists, so that the concept of basic research was closely linked to training scientific talent (Steelman 1947b : 29–30). From the late 19th century onwards, the modern research university inevitably moved further and further away from the traditional concept of a university as a specialized institution of higher education that excluded any notion of material benefit or practical aims. Yet the post-war debate on support for basic research led to a new version of the old boundary discourse of pure versus applied and theory versus practice. At a major symposium on basic research in May 1959, one representative of a private technical university reasoned that the

most difficult questions arise as to what is fundamental research, what is practical development, and which projects could be more appropriately done in commercial laboratories. … One useful criterion which helps many decisions in this field is that to be acceptable in any area a research program must be one which is consistent with and contributes to the educational program. This means it must be one in which graduate students can participate. This means, among other things, it must not be ‘classified’, either for reasons of trade secrecy or military security. (DuBridge 1959 : 109–110)

In the discourse among academic teachers, the ideal of training “good scientists” was not compatible with military or other contract research (Elvehjem 1959 : 94). Even engineering sciences felt compelled to adopt pure-science ideals whereby profit and research projects with self-serving interests should be taboo in institutions of higher education as long as they were part of scientific training. Given the fact that the growing number of military-related research projects at universities during the Cold-War years often included doctoral students, these statements certainly did not mirror the actual practice in the higher education of engineers (Dennis 1994 ). They rather seem to reflect the increasing uneasiness with the security guidelines related to contract research for the armed forces and the increasing number of military-related research projects.

The call for new knowledge through basic research in the post-war era also reached industry. Big companies such as DuPont or the Bell Telephone Company, which could afford their own well-equipped laboratories, intended to expand their participation in basic research after the war had ended (Fisk 1959 ). However, since economic rationales entailed selecting projects that were most likely to lead to innovation, these companies welcomed the idea of the federal government funding riskier projects to be carried out at the universities (Greenewalt 1959 : 130). After all, failures and deadlocks – all more or less inevitable parts of the scientific production of knowledge – would cause costs they wanted to avoid. Furthermore, industry representatives appreciated federal support for training the future generation of researchers they needed. This division of labour was financially promising for companies as “a technological savings account” (Greenewalt 1959 ).

While the amount of research carried out in direct response to economic and military demands had increased tremendously since the Korean War (Killian 1959a : 122), the university was meant to become a sort of reservation for long-term basic research within a changing research landscape. Academic freedom in the second half of the 20th century largely sought to liberate science from over-the-top societal expectations. Protecting scientific research “from the insistent demands of applied research” became a central argument deployed by scientists as well as industry and politics (Weaver 1959 : XIV; see also Greenewalt 1959 : 128). Yet what was initially intended to protect scarce knowledge resources could, in the long run, transform into an ideal of purity. The university was granted the status of a reservation in the midst of a rapidly changing research landscape in order to protect science against excessive expectations and thus guarantee the open development of scientific knowledge. With the status of reservation, however, also came the danger that research conditions be artificially conserved, making it difficult to respond to changes in scientific practices.

The Revival of 19th-Century Epistemic Norms and Virtues

The shift from a discourse of knowledge sustainability to a discourse of purity affected the epistemic concepts of science in particular and, in so doing, appeared to hark back to ideas coursing in the 18th and 19th centuries. First and foremost, this shift concerned the relationship between the natural sciences and technology. Although Vannevar Bush himself dealt with basic questions in mathematics – a central basic discipline in engineering – as well as with construction design in his own research, his proposals ended up reviving the old distinction between nature and technology because they made the distinction between engineering, on the one hand, and the natural sciences, on the other.

Historians have explained this distinctive position on the natural sciences with Bush’s personal concepts of administration and his ideas about achieving excellence in science through specialized researchers, based, of course, on the premise that the rationale of open science would guarantee the unhindered diffusion of knowledge for the benefit of technical progress (Reingold 1987 : 306–307). This relapse into outdated concepts of science, however, cannot be reduced to the personal preferences of Vannevar Bush. It should instead be seen as a broader academic phenomenon, which began as a move to counter the increasing demand on science for immediate benefits that reached its height during the Second World War, before finally turning into a political programme in the West, nestled within the ideological competition of the Cold War.

In order to protect basic research in the natural sciences, academic experts wanted these disciplines to steer clear of any kind of technical development. As Alan T. Waterman ( 1959 : 28) proclaimed in 1959, “the growing applications of physics, chemistry, and mathematics should be shifted to engineering departments and kept out of the regular science departments”. In other words, from the point of view of the natural sciences, applied research primarily meant research that sought to yield future technology.

An oceanographical study carried out within the context of naval research in the late 1940s and early 1950s reconfirms this one-dimensional understanding of applied research in contrast to basic research. The US Office of Naval Research was a staunch supporter of basic research in oceanography, yet the question of secrecy revealed that the Navy and scientists differed in their classification of basic and applied research and in their notion of utility. Oceanographers defined their investigations of the topographical features or meteorological conditions of the ocean as basic research as long as it did not expressly serve the development of technology destined for use by the Navy. The Navy, however, developed “a more sophisticated definition of basic research that would take its operational nature into account” and demonstrated strategic utility of geography for military purposes (Hamblin 2002 : 27).

This purification of the natural sciences even affected the existing research vocabulary. Science policy experts tried to find new labels for research fields in engineering formerly classified as fundamental or basic research. The term “analytical engineering” is a good example of this renaming practice (Killian 1959a : 122). Moreover, in the debates revolving around basic research in the post-war era, the whole attitude towards technology appeared to become more ambivalent. In the 1950s, the National Science Foundation still justified the support for basic research primarily by the goal of enhancing technical progress. At the same time, it became ever more common for statements on science to conclude with a declaration bearing the motivating force behind scientific endeavour; the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and the quest for truth became the appendix of federal science policy (Waterman 1959 : 37–40; Astin 1959 : 154).

Researchers in innovation studies have associated post-war research policy with the “linear model”, that is with a linear trajectory from basic research in the natural sciences to technology (Edgerton 2004 ). Implicit in the new policy of basic research was a renaissance of the older epistemic notion of an asymmetry of knowledge and, by association, the scientific preference for research led by theoretical questions. Particular support for basic research in the natural sciences was grounded in the hope that a few basic discoveries would be sufficient to significantly broaden the potential for technological application (Elvehjem 1959 : 98). In the process of striving for the endless frontier of the unknown, the idea of major theories in the natural sciences came to be the ultimate driving force of scientific progress and thus a further argument for supporting basic research.

Even representatives of industrial research endorsed the orientation of academic research towards theory in order to provide mutual benefit:

[T]he existence of even a crude and preliminary physical theory and the heeding of it in the expectations and patterns of operation of scientific work would permit coupling of the individual, uncommitted, undirected researcher to the general objectives of economic and social programs. … In the still regrettably small list of findings from basic scientific research which have been quickly and directly connected with large advances in technology and useful operations are several important examples. In these, the really new idea came out because a unifying theory had displaced the true possibilities – the wide range of means rather than simply the ends themselves … (W. O. Baker 1959 : 54).

This hierarchical and linear notion of knowledge production contrasted with a more dynamic understanding of the relationship between fundamentally theoretical questions and approaches that started out from a concrete problem of application. Although the professional self-image of academic superiority certainly continued to have an effect on epistemic ideas and norms in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, shifting research practices had already begun breaking up this static epistemic model. As the special support of basic research and its distinctive position within the different research activities was beyond dispute in the late 1950s, representatives of industrial research or national laboratories only casually mentioned the mutual reinforcement of theoretical and application problems they encountered (Astin 1959 : 145, 151; Fisk 1959 : 160–161).

Debates on basic research eventually revealed another old epistemic ideal referring to the intellectual qualities of researchers and to research conditions that encouraged scientific creativity. New (federal) support for basic research initially focused on individual researchers in order to foster “the development of the individual scientist” (Waterman 1959 : 34; see also Weaver 1959 : XI; Greenewalt 1959 : 128–131; Morison 1959 : 230). Experts esteemed individual creativity as the main property of outstanding scientists, enabling them to move forward into the unknown. The free flow of unconstrained intellectual creativity was thus defined as basic research. Not least, the financial relief stemming from regular federal funding was well received as a guarantee of intellectual freedom (Tuve 1959 ).

This particular position was backed up by the revival of old academic virtues. “[T]ruly ‘basic research’ was driven by a passionate love for knowledge. Basic research thus meant ‘support for ideas’ in the first place” (Tuve 1959 : 174, 175; see also Waterman 1959 ). This definition of basic research tended to be averse to technology. Furthermore, the hierarchy of basic and applied research implied the moral superiority of academic research over benefit-oriented industrial research, even on the personal level of researchers (Elvehjem 1959 : 94–96). In the end, the epistemic virtue of disinterestedness – according to Robert Merton one of four imperatives of modern science – got mixed up with social and moral values.

This deep appreciation of individuality was partly a reaction to the growing experience of scientific teamwork, which had become common within large military or industrial research projects. Individual creativity contrasted with the conservative atmosphere of research groups, which tended to object to fresh, radical ideas (Waterman 1959 : 30; Tuve 1959 : 176). Even those involved in industrial research highlighted the advantage of academic research because companies were only able to offer limited space for the individuality of their researchers. Furthermore, the freedom of investigation was supposed to be a special incentive for academic research – an incentive that had to compete with the high salaries and the technologically well-equipped laboratories in industrial research (Elvehjem 1959 : 96–97). Praise for individuality in science, however, derived partly from the ideological value of individualism in Western civilization. The first director of the National Science Foundation, Alan T. Waterman, put it like this: “Surely one of the great assets of democracy is the encouragement of individual initiative” (Waterman 1959 : 25).

Democracy at Risk: The Ideological Role of Basic Research in the Cold-War US

The ideological potential of the basic-research concept contributed significantly to the shift from a discourse of sustainability to one of purity. Politicians, for example US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, translated the new science policy directly into political slogans such as “Science: Handmaiden of Freedom” (Eisenhower 1959 ). Politicians still placed great hopes and expectations on science as the pacemaker of technical progress, capable of securing national security, national welfare, and prosperity. At the same time, their support of basic research enabled politicians to praise academic freedom as an overall value of liberal Western society. In addition to this, federal funding for basic research, defined as support for individual initiative and creativity, symbolized the individualism within democracy (Waterman 1959 : 25). As a collective symbol bridging the gap between scientific and public discourse by the polysemy of metaphors, basic research offered a true ideological surplus. Politicians further contrasted the “limited or local application” within mission-directed research with the universality of basic research designed to “benefit all mankind” (Eisenhower 1959 : 137). Leading the technological race with the launch of its Sputnik satellite, the Soviet Union then stood for an application-oriented understanding of science in the service of communist goals, whereas the Western argument pertaining to the universality and openness of basic research claimed ethical superiority.

During the 1950s, this high praise for free basic research stood in opposition to the high percentage of projects funded by the military and the increased demands for secrecy imposed on large areas of research in physics or other fields relevant to military projects by US security policy. It is telling that, in 1951, Alan Waterman, first director of the National Science Foundation and former technical director of the Office of Naval Research, emphasized the role of science in the situation of national emergency in the wake of conflict with the communist world; in spite of the National Science Foundation’s basic research programme, he underlined the need for science to focus on urgent application problems (Waterman 1951 ). According to the literature (Forman 1987 ; Westwick 2000 ), patriotic mobilization among scientists was still high. Many classified their research voluntarily, or adjusted to political pressure for security by compartmentalizing research and forming classified communities. Although these strategies were supposed to guarantee as much scientific exchange as possible, secrecy meant that research largely took place within a national context.

Moreover, the debates in Science during the 1950s demonstrate that the secrecy policy and the effects of a dominating military grip on science gave more and more cause for concern within the scientific community. Scientists criticized the idea that the military had a “sophisticated understanding of the needs of basic research”, arguing, moreover, that “those branches of pure science that lack military appeal are as badly off financially as they ever were” (Phillips 1952 : 440). In the early 1960s, military or military-related institutes, such as the Office of Naval Research, were still financing most academic research, in particular at prestigious universities (Leslie 1993 ). Against this backdrop, the political reading of basic research was not merely an aspect of portraying the US as a liberal society to the outside world. The debate on basic research also reflected, more controversially, the internal effects of the cold war on research. The debate was embedded in a more general intellectual discourse on the consequences of the predominant security policy and the growing power of the military for democratic society (see, for example, Shils 1956 : 176–191).

Eisenhower’s statements demonstrated this growing ambiguity. In his well-known “Farewell Address” from 1961, the departing president, former supreme allied commander and president of Columbia University, warned against the growing power of a “military-industrial complex”:

[W]e must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. (Eisenhower 2003 : 414)

Eisenhower construed financially attractive contract research as a threat to the academic “fountainhead of free ideas”. More importantly, he warned against the menace to public policy and civil society of a new “scientific-technological elite” (Eisenhower 2003 : 414–415). Although Robert Merton had already stressed the similarity or affinity between open science and Western democracy, in the late 1950s and early 1960s Eisenhower and other politicians identified science as a threat to democracy when a close connection between science, the military, and the economy remained intact (Wang 1999b ).

Along with the attribute of universality, another of Merton’s four imperatives of modern science, the notion of truth also gained importance in this ideological discourse (Waterman 1959 : 39). The ideal of truth had already been part of the ideological fight against fascism during the Second World War when researchers emphasized that science offered more than technical applications: “American science therefore has an especial duty to keep aflame the torch of free research for truth, which is dimmed or gone out in so many lands” (Blakeslee 1940 : 592).

As the natural sciences had needed a long time to set themselves apart from an understanding of science dominated by natural philosophy, the revitalization of the idea of universal truth appears anachronistic. In the 19th century, the natural sciences developed a mechanical and structural understanding of objectivity based on methodological processes that sometimes even stood in contradiction to the quest for truth and certitude (Daston 2000 : 32–34). At the beginning of the 20th century, the quest for truth had something old-fashioned about it in a scientific era in which research was constantly doing away with established certainties.

Coping with Ethical Dilemmas in the Cold-War Era

During the Cold War, however, the attributes of truth and universality were revitalized and became part of an effort to present science as a politically and ideologically independent authority in society. From the viewpoint of politics, science was able to act as a neutral authority upon which decision-makers could rely (Price 1962 : 1105). Scientists themselves praised the idea “that science has something more valuable than its material gifts to offer. … Science can have no dogma, no arbitrary authority, no ‘party line’” (Sinnott 1950 : 125). Scientific virtues of “objectivity, tolerance, reluctance to distort or suppress evidence, and willingness to accept sound logic and demonstrable fact” were transformed into political virtues (W. P. Taylor 1953 : 449). At the same time, however, the position of impartial experts tended to be morally overloaded when scientists were meant to become missionaries of “reason and good will” in the fight against “falsehood and hate” (Sinnott 1950 : 126; see also Szent-Györgyi 1957 ; Rapoport 1957 ; Weaver 1961 : 259). In fact, the democratic framing of basic research and the revival of knowledge ideals in the tradition of Humanism led to a politicization of science and, as a result, basic research itself became part of ideology, namely Western ideology.

Historians have already pointed to the various ideological dimensions of science in the post-war period (Wang 1999a ; Ash 2006 : 30; for the social sciences and humanities, see Bender 1997 ). Some scholars from science and technology studies blame Robert Merton’s comparison of science in democracy with science in fascist and communist regimes for the misconception of scientific ideals such as autonomy and universality, a misconception that they have been trying to correct ever since (see the overview in Daston 2000 : 18–20). But the societal, political, and ethical implications of the basic-research concept were embraced by the scientific community, even without sociological mediation.

After the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the role of science in society certainly became more contradictory (Conant 1961 : 6–13). While researchers had wholeheartedly praised the salutary benefits of science before Hiroshima (A. H. Compton 1940 : 56), contemporaries noted afterwards that the “atom bomb once and for all explodes the ‘neutrality’ of technology” (Shepard 1946 : 66). The promise of progress was only one side of the coin. Scientists became increasingly aware of the burden of responsibility in their own research. Some of them hoped to avoid this problem by pursuing more theoretical research topics. Others tried to take political action, such as the atomic physicists’ movement, which fought for civilian use of scientific knowledge and technological invention. But the anxious atmosphere during the Cold War period – anti-communist harassment and the increasing public fear of a new scientific-technological elite – aggravated the ethical dilemmas of post-war science.

A statement made by the physicist Julius Robert Oppenheimer, a leading figure in the Manhattan Project, about the debate on basic research indicates scientists’ uneasiness when they were faced with these dilemmas: “The argument that the quest for new knowledge, which is basic science, is ennobling, and the argument that the quest for new knowledge produces new knowledge which is useful to technology and thus to practice, are disturbingly separate and unrelated arguments. … Yet science and technology are symbiotic” (Oppenheimer 1959 : 9; for a similar argument, see W. O. Baker 1959 : 43–47). Oppenheimer seemed to suspect that the debate on basic research simply reflected these modern dilemmas. It is striking, but also telling, that he tried hard to avoid the dualistic semantics that characterized science policy at this time. Oppenheimer explicitly raised the political problems brought about by the powerful scientific culture of the 20th century. Taking the growing criticism toward scientists into account, the physicist believed that making the public understand research goals had become difficult. While the impact of science on society had increased tremendously, the fast growth of scientific knowledge and technical innovations made it hard for laypersons to judge issues in science policy. Oppenheimer feared that this asymmetry of knowledge between experts and the lay public weakened democratic political decision-making (Oppenheimer 1959 : 12–13). Footnote 17

The charges brought by the McCarthy Committee in 1954 against Oppenheimer relating to his opposition to the hydrogen bomb illustrate that scientists who were willing to assume responsibility for their research by taking political action had to learn the hard way that there was little room in the political climate of the Cold War to deal openly with these dilemmas of modern science (Bird and Sherwin 2005 : 462–550). With regard to scientists of the progressive left advocating a more utility-oriented notion of science, Jessica Wang notes that “[a]lthough their views on the structure of postwar science were not directly responsible for their political difficulties in every case, these scientists and others who embraced a liberal-left politics of science were likely to hold other views that made them vulnerable to anti-communist attacks and excluded them from political influence” (Wang 1995 : 166). In the mid 1950s, the National Science Foundation and the Academy of Science included the criterion of national loyalty into their peer-review system for unclassified research. Both organisations thus sought to avoid allegations of supporting researchers who were suspected of sympathising with communist ideas (Waterman 1960 : 127; Committee on Loyalty in Relation to Government Support of Unclassified Research 1956 ).

The question of loyalty arose especially when it came to discussing technological application, as an official statement by the President of Associated Universities addressed to the Committee on Government Operations confirmed:

If a scientist expresses a strong view on some technological matter that may be contrary to the application of technology to current or to subsequent policy, he is open to the accusation of taking this view with the intent of deliberate subversion. … Moreover, secrecy prevents him from stating the essential technical grounds on which his view is based. Therefore, in the simple process of doing his job for his country well, he is open to damaging criticism against which he is permitted to produce little defense. (Berkner 1956 : 784–785)

Given this pitfall, the discursive separation of science from technology provided a strategy to avoid the risk of being forced to go “politicking”, which gradually came to be considered as the “disease” of the project research dominating American universities at that time (Gates 1958 : 234).

In this particular situation (the ethical dilemmas of the techno-scientific world, the fragile relationship between science and the public in democracy, and the ideological antagonism during the Cold War), the dissociation of the natural sciences from applied research and any practical application of scientific knowledge was thought to offer a strategy of individual, professional, and institutional relief: Firstly, a strategy that avoids assuming ethical responsibility for the changes caused by scientific knowledge. Secondly, a sort of self-protecting strategy that sought to avoid the direct line of political fire in a society entirely concerned with national security, the latter which produced an atmosphere of suspicion. And thirdly, a strategy of political neutrality and independence from any self-serving interests as a means of guaranteeing the institutional freedom of academic science and a self-regulating scientific community which, from a scientific point of view, was best capable of dealing with the open and often unpredictable process of epistemic progress. The scientific community retreated into a “satisfactory philosophy of ignorance”; as long as science was defined as institutionalized scepticism, it was still possible to maintain the belief in science or scientific knowledge as an indispensable value of modern civilization (Feynman 1955 : 15).

Conflicting Promises and Their Effects on the Public Image of Science

This neutral position secured the federal funding of research at universities in the US – something the universities had longed for since the 1920s. In return, academic researchers promised simply that science would lay the foundation for progress. They also offered their expertise to politics, thus acting as an independent authority over truth in a pluralistic, democratic society. The certainty academic scientists offered appeared to be especially welcome at a time in which society was driven by great anxiety. With regard to the outside image of the US during the Cold War, the universities’ role as reservations devoted to autonomous science served as a symbol for Western liberal society in the tradition of Humanism amid the great ideological competition, while simultaneously providing fig-leaf camouflage for the technology-based arms race. The post-war understanding of scientific autonomy was, in fact, the result of a broad process of the politicization of science arising from the growing importance of scientific knowledge for society.

Since there is, by definition, no clear solution for dilemmas, the strategy of basic research inevitably caused problems for the relationship between science and the public in the long run. Articles on this relationship and on topics such as the responsibility of science in the late 1950s show that public mediation between the needs of science and those of society became increasingly problematic (Killian 1959b : 136; Sayre 1961 ; Price 1962 ). According to Bender, this understanding of the autonomy of science, in particular the position of elitist experts and how they neglected their responsibilities, alienated science from society, evoked the impression of an academic ivory tower, and, finally, ended in federal budget cuts for academic research (Bender 1997 : 8–12).

Moreover, I argue that the simple promises of truth and progress scientists had avowed to society covered the complexity and uncertainty of research dynamics as well as the tentativeness of contested scientific knowledge. Moreover, the authority of scientific objectivity and methodologically certified knowledge revealed its limitations during political negotiations on values and societal goals; the position of moral neutrality might bewilder the public. It could thus lead to disappointment, misunderstanding, and even to the loss of science’s integrity in the public sphere. Furthermore, the increasing interlocking of technology and the natural sciences was also hidden behind praise for basic research. Since technological innovation had become part of the natural sciences, questions of risk and utility had inevitably arisen and transformed themselves into political and ethical issues: Who will profit from the results? How do we manage risks?

Only few researchers at that time anticipated that the excessive expectations of and contradictory demands on research might turn the public against science (W. O. Baker 1959 : 48; Dryden 1954 ). The shift from a discourse of knowledge sustainability to one of purity meant that the concept of basic research itself sent contradictory signals to the public: “The uneasiness of scientists on this score is revealed by the observation that, whereas they claim among themselves that their primary interest is in the conceptual, not in the applied, aspects of science, in public they justify basic research by asserting that it always leads to ‘useful’ results” (Dubos 1961 : 1209; see also Daniels 1967 ).

In fact, the concept of basic research and the underlying linear model of innovation had already come under attack in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The long-term and highly speculative nature of scientific research was difficult to communicate to a public that expected economic prosperity and welfare here and now. Society’s disappointment backfired on the scientific community and stimulated a debate about the appropriateness of dissociating basic from applied research (Abelson 1966 ; Reagan 1967 ). Yet this crisis is another chapter in the conceptual history of basic research and goes beyond the scope of this paper.

Despite recurring crises, the concept of basic research functioned as a collective symbol for science policy over quite a long period of time. Moreover, the semantics of the new US science policy spread across the entire Western world. Ever since the National Science Foundation established a periodical survey of overall research in the US based on the categories basic research, applied research, and development (the final stage of innovation, when technologies or ideas are turned into marketable products), nearly all countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) adopted this classification (OECD 1976 ). Basic research and its corresponding categories were converted into enduring statistical realities that played a crucial role in budget planning within industry and in funding allocation undertaken by government bodies (Godin 2005b ).

Fundamental Research in the Federal Republic of Germany: A Brief Overview

In the Federal Republic of Germany (hereafter referred to as West Germany), fundamental research also became a key concept in science policy. The impact of the American role model on West Germany is quite obvious. Within the context of re-education and development programmes, those representing US science promoted their concept of science in democracy with its special focus on fundamental research in West Germany (Conant 1953 ; Bush 1954 ). However, the national characteristics of the German research landscape coupled with the historical burden of the Nazi past meant that the way fundamental research and its corresponding discourses were implemented differed to a certain degree from the American experience. I will briefly mention some of these Germany-specific characteristics in order to maintain a balance between the two national perspectives.

After the Second World War, the Allies assumed control of science in Germany with the intention of suppressing all further research activities relevant to the development of armaments. Allied Control Council Acts and the ensuing executive regulations specified by each of the Western occupation zones forbade any fundamental or applied scientific research with military relevance (Frowein 1949 , 1950 ). Footnote 18 It is remarkable that the crucial criterion for prohibition was the military potential of research projects rather than the difference between fundamental and applied research.

Similar to the American reaction to Bush’s proposals, discussions within the German scientific community over the dissociation of basic from applied research were quite controversial in the initial post-war years. Those from engineering or the applied sciences were particularly confused by this distinction and felt insecure about their future position and status within academia (Vieweg 1950 : 731–732; Sörensen 1952 : 158). The creation of compounds such as “applied fundamental research” ( angewandte Grundlagenforschung ) was a further German strategy designed to overcome this confusion in engineering (Heiss 1950 : 121, 127; Wever 1952 : 1053).

In order to cope with the Nazi past, the concept of pure science was initially more attractive because of its moral connotation in the sense of innocence. Many scientists labelled their research activities during the Nazi period retrospectively as pure science in order to avoid being accused of complying with and supporting the former fascist regime (Mehrtens 1994 ). In general, the revival of ideals belonging to the 19th-century concept of pure science was more extensive than in the US. Reference to the Humanist notion of education became part of the programme to democratise society. This notion thus shaped the self-understanding of German universities, which culminated in a re-glorification of the Prussian university reformer Wilhelm von Humboldt, who had emphasized the educational function of science. Footnote 19 German professors embraced the older scientific ideal of truth-seeking as the ultimate motive for research. Footnote 20

Right after the war, German academics tried hard to avoid the impression that their research was driven by any political or economic interests. The US occupying forces certainly wanted to keep science at a great distance to politics, but they did not seek to suppress economically and technically promising research (Cassidy 1996 : 200–206). In fact, the growing tension with the Soviet Union meant that the Marshall Plan’s aim was speedy economic recovery in both Germany and Western Europe. John Krige has already pointed out that the basic-research concept played a key role in reconstructing European science under “American hegemony”. Firstly, the concept was important for communicating the US financial support for the former wartime enemies towards the American public. Secondly, it transported the Western ideology and was therefore part of the envisioned democratization process in central Europe. Finally, the US promoted basic research as unclassified research in the allied countries in order to increase its stock of scientific knowledge and thus to secure the American technological leadership (Krige 2010 ).

The German discourse on the general role of science in society defined scientific knowledge primarily as a cultural good in order to strip off the Nazi past: science was given a religious appeal (Walden 1946 ; Rein 1946 ; Reppe 1950 : 1; Erbe 1954 ). However, even scientists such as the physicist Otto Hahn, who argued strongly that research in the natural sciences should abstain from any economic or technological considerations, advocating instead that science ought to be driven by the thirst for knowledge, campaigned for research funding by highlighting examples of scientific discoveries that eventually led to successful products or innovative technology (Hahn 1949 , 1954 ).

Overall, the German concept of fundamental research resembled the US one in many ways. It encompassed the idea of the long-term perspective and that of the scientific knowledge reservoir or resource, the demand for scientific talent, individual creativity in research, and the belief in disciplinary specialisation (see, for instance, Reppe 1950 ). Eventually, fundamental research also became the key concept in the public funding of research in West Germany. However, the Germans’ attempt to institutionally dissociate academic research from research promising primarily economic utility was much more radical than in the US. West Germany founded the German Research Foundation in order to fund academic research and the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (Fraunhofer Society) as the funding body responsible for economically relevant research.

The German Research Foundation’s crucial criterion for defining fundamental research was the institutional autonomy of academic research. According to a number of historical studies, this particular focus on fundamental research implied a restoration of the power held by full professors (known in Germany as the Ordinariensystem ). As the demands for the applied and the technical sciences were growing continually, in 1956, the German Research Foundation also established a special commission for funding applied research. However, this commission failed to gain importance as an instrument for promoting research in the technical sciences (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 1956 ). Technical universities therefore had to look for financial support from another quarter. In the end, the ideal of fundamental research in West Germany seemed to slow down the institutional emancipation of technical colleges from universities. Furthermore, academic research lost contact with expensive, major scientific projects carried out in publicly funded research institutes (Orth 2011 ).

All in all, the shift from a discourse of sustainability to one of purity after the Second World War appears to have been a transnational process, although both the background and the intensity of the purity ideals in the US and in West Germany differed from one another. In both nations, the purity discourse implied a revival of scientific ideals dating back to the 19th century. West Germany adopted the American imperative of basic research, but German scientists referred more extensively to the Humanist tradition of academia because they had to dissociate themselves from their Nazi past. As universities were supposed to play an important role in Germany’s effort to progress towards democracy, academic science was defined by primarily educational ideals. The call for basic research after the Second World War in the US initially sought to maintain federal funding for academic research in order to enable scientific talent to flourish without it being subject to pressure from the expectation of benefit held by society. Basic research became a key concept in US federal science policy because the latter defined science as a common good with a long-term perspective. However, the fact that this key concept became crucial in the long run can be explained only by the fact that it functioned as a discursive strategy designed to cope with the political and ethical dilemmas of science during the Cold War.

Conclusions

This article has sought to demonstrate the importance of an historical approach in order to, firstly, understand the complex meanings of basic research and, secondly, answer the two questions of why science policy revolved around the concept of basic research and its dissociation from applied research for such a long time, and why this is still such a hot topic in science and technology studies today. If we continue to describe basic research as a timeless, clearly definable mode, even as an ideal type of research in contrast to applied research, we completely overlook the reason why this key concept in modern science policy emerged at all. In fact, this study has shown that the term basic research cannot be seen as a simple synonym for the older notion of pure science. As a consequence, the assumption made in social-scientific studies that the ideal of basic research structured modern science continuously up until the postmodern era, when application-oriented research was thought to gain predominance, needs to be corrected.

As the term basic research emerged in the early 20th century and became more common only in the late 1930s, it is actually quite young. Basic research is best described as a collective symbol of science policy designed to bridge the gap between the desire to support research, despite the fact that scientific output is unpredictable and that the expectations placed upon science by society have been growing constantly during the 20th century. For the history of basic research, it is crucial to note that the concept itself (as well as similar terms such as fundamental research) initially emerged in both the natural sciences within research fields that pursued explicitly practical ends and subdisciplines of engineering that targeted technological innovation and improvement.

While science profited financially from society’s growing demand for research, researchers simultaneously faced pressure from society’s expectation that science should produce immediately exploitable knowledge. In deploying the concept of basic research, scientists promised the public that research would lay the ultimate foundation for all sorts of progress and innovation, while at the same time conveying the experience that scientific research was time-consuming and its outcome and technical applications were hard to predict. Until 1945, basic research primarily meant long-term research in the natural sciences that was ultimately expected to solve practical problems.

After the Second World War, basic research became a central concept of US science policy, which particularly promoted research at universities and non-profit research institutes. Although the scientific promise of progress remained an important message in this concept after 1945, the discourse revolving around basic research shifted considerably in the post-war period from a discourse of knowledge sustainability to a discourse of purity. During the war, scientists had learnt to value massive governmental support of research, but they were concerned that the short-term planning of war-related research and its security restrictions would put the sustainability of both scientific knowledge and manpower at risk in the long run. Believing that scientists knew best when it came down to making science flourish and knowing what it took to explore the unknown, the challenge for scientists was legitimizing the continuance of federal science funding while at the same time advocating the institutional autonomy of science.

To this end, science policy advisers such as Vannevar Bush revived a long-lasting semantic reservoir of scientific ideals. By dissociating scientific knowledge from its potential applications, it became possible to define academic research as a common good capable of laying claim to federal protection, just as the older concept of pure science had done before. Bush’s proposal focused on the natural sciences, whose studies in the fundamental principles of nature were thought to offer nearly endless possibilities for technical innovation. Moreover, this new definition responded to the educational tasks undertaken by universities in which research projects were part of scientific qualification. The self-concept of higher education institutions traditionally kept their distance from any utilitarian aspects of scientific knowledge.

The distinction between basic and applied research thus served, first and foremost, as a criterion governing the allocation of federal funding, implemented through the newly founded National Science Foundation. Although the majority of researchers were grateful for the new federal support for research, the concept of basic research became the subject of controversies in the late 1940s because it reanimated ideals and norms of the older, European discourse of pure science. With these semantic references, basic research evoked older epistemic and social hierarchies. Research was seen to be more theory- than problem-oriented, the natural sciences assumed moral superiority over the technical sciences, and academic researchers were considered morally superior to industrial researchers. The individual pursuit of knowledge ennobled academic researchers, who became detached from immediate demands so that scientific creativity was given free rein.

To a certain extent, the re-establishment of older scientific ideals was a reaction to the exceptional conditions of wartime research. In many research fields, however, the ideals belonging to a former notion of science contradicted the changed practices in and demands placed on research in the 20th century. In particular, the idea of keeping technology apart from the natural sciences, which derived from an artificial funding demarcation, appeared anachronistic. These social and epistemic attributions of basic research looked like a cultural lag in modern science.

The reason why the concept of basic research, with all its reminiscences to former purity discourses, finally prevailed was that it functioned as a discursive strategy to cope with the difficult relationship between science and the public, the ideologically charged atmosphere of the Cold War, and the ethical dilemmas in science during the second half of the 20th century. When it comes to the political dimension of the concept of basic research, there are usually references to Robert Merton or Michael Polanyi, who stated that only democracy guaranteed full scientific autonomy and that, vice versa, scientific independence was a prerequisite of democratic pluralism because it presented a disinterested authority of truth (Merton 1942 ; Polanyi 1962 ). This self-image of science as being autonomous and disinterested was partly a result of Western ideology competing with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The effects of the Cold War on domestic politics were a major challenge to the scientific community. The first use of the atomic bomb rendered discussion of the goals of science unavoidable. Scientists who took part in the debate about the application of scientific knowledge for good or bad discovered that there was little room for negotiation in Cold-War America. At the same time, the relationship between the scientific community and the public became ever tenser as cooperation between science and the military increased. American intellectuals perceived this military-science nexus as a threat to US democratic culture. As a consequence, resorting to basic research was part of a strategy of relief – not only relief from society’s expectation of science to produce immediate benefits, but also from political controversies that might affect a researcher’s reputation and put his or her chances of acquiring funding at risk.

The success of this key concept in science policy lay in the polysemy of “basic”, which functioned as a kind of self-reassurance within the scientific community and could be used to signal societal utility when communicating to the wider public. The concept of basic research thus worked as collective symbol linking the public discourse to the scientific discourse. The label “basic” signified that research was a precondition for future scientific progress. At the same time, it communicated the fundamental importance of research for societal or economic and technological progress.

In the end, the concept of basic research could not solve the dilemmas of science in 20th-century societies. In fact, it produced its own confusion and misleading expectations. The simplified promise of progress depended on society’s confidence, which dwindled during the economic crisis of the 1970s. Particularly after the discourse on basic research referred to the intrinsic ideal of science for its own sake, society’s trust was put at risk. In addition, the simplified promise of scientific objectivity – the alleged neutrality of facts – obscured the actual complexity of research, where scientific truth is always contested.

Which lessons can we draw from this analysis for the current theoretical debate in science and technology studies? Bruno Latour’s argument against basic research is well taken in so far as the semantics of the concept do not represent the actual research practices and their institutional settings. As the above analysis has shown, the same type of criticism was already voiced by contemporaries of Vannevar Bush. Bush’s definition of basic research, especially his dissociation of the natural sciences from the technical sciences and its purity ideals, however, were more than just a simple misrepresentation: they had a long-lasting effect on the Western notion of science and research policy.

The resort to purity ideals can be blamed for retarding or interrupting this reflective process within the natural sciences. Moreover, there are hints that the reference to older scientific ideals led to taboos being placed on research topics leading to technical innovations, at least in some disciplines within the natural sciences. Eric J. Vettel has demonstrated how the revival of the policy of pure science in the 1950s altered research topics and institutional organization in microbiology and how the turn toward an application-oriented research policy during the 1960s led, in the long run, to biotechnology (Vettel 2006 ). The discipline of biology is thus a good example for demonstrating that parts of this purity discourse have, once again, faded away. The self-image of researchers like Craig Venter, geneticist and entrepreneur, no longer corresponds to the old image of the quiet academic scholar (Venter 2007 ). These recent historical shifts have indeed been noted by science studies. But we need more long-term historical studies on individual research fields and disciplines – studies tracing the historical development of research topics as far back as the late 19th and early 20th centuries – in order to understand the effects of the return of the purity discourse after 1945.

Bruno Latour has described purity discourses as a typically modern phenomenon that has since become less important. The results of this analysis, however, show that the concept of basic research had many functions. Aside from its role as a criterion for distributing research funding, the concept of basic research mainly served as a strategy for coping, firstly, with society’s increasing expectations of science, secondly, with the ethical dilemmas associated with the debate on the overall purpose of science, and, thirdly, with the political implications of science’s role as an increasingly powerful force in society. The case of the US shows that, despite the initial criticism of anachronism, the revival of the purity discourse succeeded because the concept of basic research became a strategy to cope with the uncertainties and dilemmas of the Cold-War period.

In fact, many of these dilemmas will continue to challenge science policy in the 21st century. As science and technology have become powerful forces in our societies, they will be subject to both conflicts of interest and political and ethical controversies. Whether the strategy of dealing with these controversies will continue to characterize basic research is, however, an open question. On the one hand, some representatives of science and technology studies believe that previous strategies have failed in coping with these dilemmas (Jasanoff 2005 : 6; Shapin 2010 : 387–391). On the other hand, new concepts like the European Research Council’s “frontier research” seem to revive the basic-research concept – at least with regard to its original function as part of a discourse on knowledge sustainability, which the current article has sought to reveal (High-Level Expert Group 2005 : 16). Footnote 21

Analysis of these discourses provides us with insights into expectations placed upon future research and into societal and scientific experiences from the past, which, among other things, frame decisions about what kind of research society wants and what kind of research should be funded by the public purse. Historical semantics can help to elucidate scientific taboos, which are taken for granted because they are the outcome of specific political or societal situations. All in all, historical semantics could be one useful approach among many in science and technology studies. It provides a critical perspective on the complex relationship between science and society. Moreover, it helps to reveal the historical legacy of our notions of science and technology, including their multiple attributes, which are still very present, although this seems to have gone unnoticed by many contemporary observers. This is why the analysis of concepts such as basis research is (still) an interesting, worthwhile subject for science studies. However, with regard to the legacy of the concept of basic research, this article suggests that it should not be used as a technical term whose meanings can be taken for granted. Scholars in the field of science and technology studies are thus well advised to explicate which of the many facets of the term they allude to when using the concept of basic research.

See the subsection “The discursive strategy of ‘fundamental research’ and the reassessment of German science in the Nazi period” below for more details.

Given the recently growing interest in the relationship between science and technology, the reflection on terms like “applied science” seems to have started a little bit earlier (Bud 2012a , b ; Gooday 2012 ; Karns Alexander 2012 ; Lucier 2012 ; Schatzberg 2012 ). This literature, however, focusses primarily on the 19th century.

In contrast to older approaches of historical semantics like intellectual history or the history of ideas, which cling to the idea of authorship and reception theory, discourse analysis does not aim at identifying the pedigree of new concepts or arguments in detail. Instead of singling out individual statements or discussing personal rationales, discourse analysis rather tries to find common patters of arguments that are shared by many discourse participants.

The cited sources and documents do not represent the whole sample of texts. The texts I refer to in this article were chosen because they exemplify broader discursive strategies revolving around the concept of basic research in a particularly typical way.

In the German-speaking context, the term science is not restricted to natural sciences. This also applied to the English-speaking academia in early modern times.

The history of both scientific organizations was the subject of two major research projects, which have recently been concluded. See the wealth of research published in the academic series Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, four volumes published so far) and Geschichte der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Nationalsozialismus (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, seventeen volumes published so far).

In this article, I will consistently translate the German term Grundlagenforschung as “fundamental research”. Unlike the Anglo-American science discourse, the German science discourse does not accommodate conceptual variations such as that between “basic research” and “fundamental research”.

Trained as a theologian, Hans Hartmann worked as an author specializing in writing about scientists and science policy issues.

In other disciplinary contexts, the study of material properties was also denoted as goal-oriented research (Bauermeister 1938 : 479).

In the natural sciences during this period, the term only appeared in a very specific context. In the 1920s, a group of biologists and psychologists discussed the question of the functional usefulness of organs or mental processes within organisms, an approach they also labelled as Zweckforschung (E. Becher 1921 : 296–304; H. Becher 1923 ).

It took a while before the new term Zweckforschung (goal-oriented research) was established. Confusingly, some Nazi partisans used the term goal-oriented research as a synonym for pure science, criticizing the idea of research as an end in itself (W. Schultze 1938 : 5; Löhr 1938 : 20).

In order to get a better idea of conceptual dissemination, I provide here some results of a statistical analysis of the electronically accessible journal Science (including the supplement The Scientific Monthly ). Between 1921 and 1930, the term basic research was used 14 times and fundamental research was used 121 times. Between 1931 and 1940, the term basic research showed up 51 times and fundamental research 154 times. Just five years later, the term basic research had been employed 69 times and fundamental research 182 times.

See, for instance, the decision of the Senate of the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich in the early 1920s (Archive of the University, Sen. 523).

Bush consistently referred to “basic research” in his report. At the time, however, the term “fundamental research” was more widespread.

As the broader research context was hidden to scientific peers and to the researchers themselves, this strategy at least allowed the publication of detailed results.

In 1944 and 1945 there was already an ongoing debate in letters to the editor of the journal Science that critically reflected the re-idealization of the notion of pure science (Stern 1944 ; Pearson 1944 ; Robin 1944 ; Feibleman 1944 ; Alexander 1945 ; Stern 1945 ; Moore 1945 ; J. R. Baker 1945 ).

See also James C. Connant’s contribution to the debate on the relationship between science and the public ( 1951 ). For more details, see Hershberg ( 1993 : 554–577).

The exact German terms deployed in the two key laws, the Kontrollratsgesetz no. 25 from 29.04.1946 and the Militärregierungsgesetz, no. 23 from 12.09.1949 were “grundlegende wissenschaftliche Forschung” and “angewandte wissenschaftliche Forschung”. The regulations defined military relevance on the basis of several classified research fields. For more details of how the allies controlled research, see Heinemann ( 2001 ).

In the German university tradition, Humboldt represents the link between education and research. For the current state of research on Humboldt’s role in university discourse, see Eichler ( 2012 ), Jarausch ( 1999 ).

The semantic differences between the two versions of the speech held by philosopher Karl Jaspers in 1923 and 1946 are significant when defining the role of universities in the wake of changes to the respective political systems: while Jaspers emphasized the objectivity of scientific knowledge in 1923, he replaced the term “objectivity” with “truth” in 1946 (Jaspers 1923 ; 1946 ).

The definition of frontier research relies again on the basic-applied nomenclature. In contrast to recent trends of promoting more applied forms of research, it shifts the balance further towards the basic-research pole of the continuum. See also the mission statement on the ERC website: http://erc.europa.eu/mission .

Abelson, Philip H. 1966. Pressure on basic research. Science 153: 11.

Google Scholar  

Alexander, Jerome. 1945. Pure science. Science 101: 37–38.

Arthur, J.C. 1895. Development of vegetable physiology. Science 2: 360–373.

Ash, Mitchell G. 2002. Wissenschaft und Politik als Ressourcen für einander. In Wissenschaften und Wissenschaftspolitik. Bestandsaufnahmen zu Formationen, Brüchen und Kontinuitäten im Deutschland des 20. Jahrhunderts , eds. Rüdiger vom Bruch, and Brigitte Kaderas, 31–51. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Ash, Mitchell G. 2006. Wissenschaftswandlungen und politische Umbrüche im 20. Jahrhundert - was hatten sie miteinander zu tun? In Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten in der Wissenschaftsgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts , eds. Rüdiger v. Bruch, Uta Gerhardt, and Aleksandra Pawliczek, 19–37. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Astin, Allen V. 1959. Basic research in government laboratories. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael Wolfle, 143–157. Washington, DC: American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.

Auchter, E.C. 1942. Agricultural science and the people’s welfare. Science 96: 283–289.

Bachér, Franz. 1937. Rede anlässlich der Kundgebung des NSD-Dozentenbundes Gau Groß-Berlin. In Wissenschaft und Vierjahresplan , ed. NSD-Dozentenbund Gau Groß-Berlin, 17–31. Berlin: NSD-Dozentenbund.

Baker, John R. 1945. The threat to pure science. Science 101: 300–301.

Baker, W.O. 1959. The paradox of choice. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael Wolfle, 41–72. Washington, DC: American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.

Barton, Henry A., and George H. Burnham. 1943. The American Institute of Physics. A report to physicists. Science 97: 172–176.

Bauermeister, Hermann. 1938. Die Bedeutung der Forschung für die Wehrtechnik. Marine-Rundschau 43: 476–479.

Becher, Erich. 1921. Geisteswissenschaften und Naturwissenschaften. Untersuchungen zur Theorie und Einteilung der Realwissenschaften . München/Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

Becher, Helmut. 1923. Über die Zweckmäßigkeitsforschung in der Embryologie und seine finale Betrachtung einiger Wachstumsvorgänge und Einrichtungen in der Placenta. Anatomischer Anzeiger 56: 272–290.

Becker, Karl. 1937. Rede des Generals Prof. Dr. Becker. In Ein Ehrentag der deutschen Wissenschaft. Die Eröffnung des Reichsforschungsrats am 25. Mai 1937 , ed. Pressestelle des Reichserziehungsministeriums. Berlin: Weidmann.

Bender, Thomas. 1997. Politics, intellect, and the American University, 1945–1995. Daedalus. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 126: 1–38.

Bennett, R.D. 1946. Reply to Professor Reed (letters to the editor). Science 103: 85.

Berkner, Lloyd V. 1956. Secrecy and scientific progress. Science 123: 783–786.

Bird, Kai, and J.M. Sherwin. 2005. American Prometheus. The triumph and tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer . New York: Random House.

Blakeslee, Albert F. 1940. Ideals of science. Science 92: 589–592.

Blakeslee, Albert F. 1941. Origin and ideals of the national science fund. Science 94: 356–358.

Blumenberg, Hans. 2010. Paradigms for a metaphorology. Translated from the German with an afterword by Robert Savage . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library.

Braun-Thürmann, Holger, Andreas Knie, and Dagmar Simon. 2010. Unternehmen Wissenschaft. Ausgründungen als Grenzüberschreitungen akademischer Forschung . Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

Brüche, Ernst. 1944. Grundlagenforschung im Krieg. Physikalische Blätter 1: 112–115.

Bud, Robert. 2012a. “Applied science”: A phrase in search of a meaning. ISIS 103: 537–545.

Bud, Robert. 2012b. Focus: Applied science—Introduction. ISIS 103: 515–517.

Bud, Robert, and Gerylynn K. Roberts. 1984. Science versus practice. Chemistry in Victorian Britain . Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Bush, Vannevar. 1945. Science. The endless frontier. A report to the president . Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Bush, Vannevar. 1954. Die Forschung von Heute und die Welt von Morgen . Essen-Bredeney: Stifterverb. für d. dt. Wissenschaft.

Butenandt, Alfred. 1940. Der Chemiker und die Geheimnisse des Lebens. Illustrierte Zeitung - Leipzig 195: 122–123.

Calvert, Jane. 2006. What’s special about basic research? Science, Technology and Human Values 31: 199–220.

Cassidy, David. 1996. Controlling German science, II: Bizonal occupation and the struggle over West German science policy, 1946–1949. Historical Studies in Physical and Biological Sciences 26: 197–239.

Clarke, Sabine. 2010. Pure science with a practical aim. The meanings of fundamental research in Britain, circa 1916–1950. ISIS 101: 285–311.

Committee on Loyalty in Relation to Government Support of Unclassified Research. 1956. Loyalty and Research. Report. Science 123: 660–662.

Compton, Arthur H. 1940. The human meaning of science . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Compton, Arthur H. 1945. Science and our nation’s future. Science 101: 207–209.

Compton, Karl T. 1934. Science still holds a great promise. An answer to those who contend that ills of today can be blamed on technology. The New York Times Magazine 16, December 6–8.

Compton, Karl T. 1942. Scientists face the world. In Scientists face the world of 1942 , eds. Karl T. Compton, Robert W. Trullinger, and Vannevar Bush, 3–45. New Brunswick: Rutgers.

Conant, James B. 1948. The role of science in our unique society. Science 107: 77–83.

Conant, James B. 1951. Science and common sense . London: Oxford University Press.

Conant, James B. 1953. Gemeinsame Entwicklung der Industrie und der Naturwissenschaft . Essen: Stifterverb. für d. dt. Wissenschaft.

Conant, James B. 1961. Modern science and modern man . New York: Columbia University Press.

Coulter, John M. 1917. Botany as a national asset. Science 45: 225–231.

Coulter, John M. 1919. The botanical opportunity. Science 49: 363–367.

Daniels, George H. 1967. The pure-science ideal and democratic culture. Science 156: 1699–1705.

Daston, Lorraine. 2000. Die Kultur der wissenschaftlichen Objektivität. In Naturwissenschaft, Geisteswissenschaft, Kulturwissenschaft: Einheit - Gegensatz - Komplementarität? , ed. Otto Gerhard Oexle, 9–39. Göttingen: Wallstein.

Dear, Peter. 2005. What is the history of science the history of? ISIS 96: 390–406.

Dennis, Micheal Aaron. 1994. “Our first line of defense”: two university laboratories in the postwar American State. ISIS 85: 427–455.

Dennis, Micheal Aaron. 2004. Reconstructing sociotechnical order. Vannevar Bush and US science policy. In States of knowledge. The co-production of science and social order , ed. Sheila Jasanoff, 225–253. London: Routledge.

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. 1956. Angewandte Forschung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Lage und Ausbaunotwendigkeiten. Denkschrift . Bad Godesberg: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

Dingler, Hugo. 1911. Die Grundlagen der angewandten Geometrie. Eine Untersuchung über den Zusammenhang zwischen Theorie und Erfahrung in den exakten Wissenschaften . Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.

Drescher-Kaden, Friedrich Karl. 1941. Die Tätigkeit der Akademie der Wissenschaften im Jahre 1940/1941. Jahrbuch der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 1940/41: 7–17.

Dryden, Hugh L. 1954. The scientist in contemporary life. Science 120: 1052–1055.

Dubos, René. 1961. Scientist and public. Why is the scientist, once a “natural philosopher”, now considered a barbarian by many educated laymen? Science 133: 1207–1211.

DuBridge, Lee A. 1959. Basic research and the private university. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael Wolfle, 107–120. Washington, DC: American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.

Dunn, L.C. 1945. Organization and support of science in the United States. Science 102: 548–554.

Edgerton, David. 2004. “The linear model” did not exist. Reflections on the history and historiography of science and research in industry in the twentieth century. In The science-industry nexus. History, policy, implications , eds. Karl Grandin, Nina Wormbs, and Sven Widmalm, 31–57. Sagamore Beach: Science History Publications.

Eichler, Martin. 2012. Die Wahrheit des Mythos Humboldt. Historische Zeitschrift 294: 59–78.

Eisenhower, Dwight D. 1959. Science: Handmaiden of freedom. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael Wolfle, 133–142. Washington, DC: American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.

Eisenhower, Dwight D. 2003. Farewell address, January 17, 1961 (broadcast by radio and television to the nation). In American presidents: Farewell messages to the nation, 1796–2001 , ed. Gleaves Whitney, 413–416. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Elvehjem, C.A. 1959. Basic research and the state university. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael Wolfle, 87–105. Washington, DC: American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.

Endell, Kurd. 1942. Was bringt die moderne Tonforschung dem Keramiker. Berichte der Deutschen Keramischen Gesellschaft E.V. 23: 110–113.

Epple, Moritz. 2002. Rechnen, Messen, Führen. Kriegsforschung am Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Strömung1937–1945. In Rüstungsforschung im Nationalsozialismus. Organisation, Mobilisierung und Entgrenzung der Technikwissenschaften , ed. Helmut Maier, 305–356. Göttingen: Wallstein.

Epple, Moritz. 2010. Kommentar zur Sektion Natur- und Technikwissenschaften. In Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 1920–1970. Forschungsförderung im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft und Politik , eds. Karin Orth, and Willi Oberkrome, 211–215. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Erbe, Walter. 1954. Autonomie und Weltoffenheit der Universität. Universitas 9: 1171–1180.

Erker, Paul. 2010. “Vierjahresplan-Chemie” und “Polymer Science”. Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft und die Chemische Forschung von den 1920er bis in die 1960er Jahre. In Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 1920–1970. Forschungsförderung im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft und Politik , eds. Karin Orth, and Willi Oberkrome, 183–202. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff (eds.). 1997. Universities and the global knowledge economy. A triple helix of university–industry–government relations . London: Printer.

Feibleman, James. 1944. The threat to pure science. Science 100: 521.

Feynman, Richard P. 1955. The value of science. Engineering and Science 19: 13–15.

Fisk, James B. 1959. Basic research in industrial laboratories. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael Wolfle, 159–167. Washington, DC: American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.

Flachowsky, Sören. 2008. Von der Notgemeinschaft zum Reichsforschungsrat. Wissenschaftspolitik im Kontext von Autarkie, Aufrüstung und Krieg . Stuttgart: Steiner.

Flachowsky, Sören. 2010. “Werkzeug der deutschen Kriegsführung”. Die Forschungspolitik der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft und des Reichsforschungsrates zwischen 1920 und 1945. In Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 1920–1970. Forschungsförderung im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft und Politik , eds. Karin Orth, and Willi Oberkrome, 53–69. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Forman, Paul. 1987. Behind quantum electronics: National security as basis for physical research in the United States, 1940–1960. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 18: 149–229.

Forman, Paul. 2010. (Re)cognizing postmodernity: Helps for historians - of science especially. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 33: 157–175.

Fosdick, Raymond B. 1934. The work of the Rockefeller Foundation—The year in brief. Science 97: 379–381.

Frowein, F. 1949. Forschungskontrolle in der Bizone. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 21: 160–161.

Frowein, F. 1950. Forschungskontrolle in Westdeutschland. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 22: 47.

Galison, Peter. 2008. Ten problems in history and philosophy of science. The History of Science Society 99: 111–124.

Gates, David M. 1958. Basic research in Europe. Different countries favor different systems for the support and organization of scientific work. Science 128: 227–235.

Geiger, Roger L. 1986. To advance knowledge. The growth of American research universities, 1900–1940 . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gibb, Alexander. 1937. Research in engineering. Science 86: 232–236.

Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies . London: Sage.

Gieryn, Thomas F. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science. Credibility on the line . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Godin, Benoît. 2005a. The linear model of innovation. The historical construction of an analytical framework . Project on the History and Sociology of S&T Statistics Working Paper No. 30. Montreal: Canadian Science and Innovation Indicators Consortium. http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_30.pdf .

Godin, Benoît. 2005b. Measurement and statistics on science and technology . London: Routledge.

Gooday, Graeme. 2012. “Vague and artificial”: The historically elusive distinction between pure and applied science. ISIS 103: 546–554.

Goudsmit, Samuel. 1947. Alsos. The failure in German science . London: Sigma Books.

Greenberg, Daniel S. 2007. Science for sale. The perils, rewards, and delusions of campus capitalism . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Greenewalt, Crawford H. 1959. Basic research: A technological savings account. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael Wolfle, 127–132. Washington, DC: American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.

Guston, David H. 2000. Between politics and science. Assuring the integrity and productivity of research . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hahn, Otto. 1949. Ist Grundlagenforschung Luxus? Umwälzende Erfindungen sind die Frucht subtiler Kleinarbeit. Göttinger Universitäts-Zeitung 4: 5–6.

Hahn, Otto. 1954. Die Bedeutung der Grundlagenforschung für die Wirtschaft . Essen: Stifterverb. für d. dt. Wissenschaft.

Hamblin, Jacob Darwin. 2002. The Navy’s “sophisticated” pursuit of science. Undersea warfare, the limits of internationalism, and the utility of basic research 1945–1956. ISIS 93: 1–27.

Hartmann, Hans. 1940. Was heißt Deutsche Forschung? Illustrierte Zeitung - Leipzig 195: 108.

Heinemann, Manfred. 2001. Überwachung und “Inventur” der deutschen Forschung. Das Kontrollratsgesetz Nr. 25 und die alliierte Forschungskontrolle im Bereich der Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. In Politischer Systembruch als irreversibler Faktor von Modernisierung in der Wissenschaft? , ed. Lothar Mertens, 167–199. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Heiss, R. 1950. Bemerkenswerte ausländische Entwicklungen in der lebensmittelindustriellen Verfahrenstechnik. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 22: 121–127.

Henkel, Heinrich. 1933. Der Begriff der Wissenschaft in Forschung und Lehre. Die deutsche Hochschule Schriftenreihe zur Erneuerung und künftigen Gestaltung des gesamten deutschen Hochschulwesens 1: 8–29.

Hershberg, James B. 1993. James B. Conant. Harvard to Hiroshima and the making of the nuclear age . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Hiedemann, Egon. 1939. Grundlagen und Ergebnisse der Ultraforschung . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

High-Level Expert Group. 2005. Frontier research: The European Challenge. High-Level Expert Group report. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/research/future/pdf/hleg_fullreport_frontier_research_april2005.pdf .

Hilbert, David. 1901. Mathematische Probleme. Archiv für Mathematik und Physik 1: 44–63, 213–237.

Hoffmann, Johannes, and Otto Suhr. 1944. Stand der Verpackungstechnik. Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure 88: 543–550.

Jarausch, Konrad H. 1999. Das Humboldt-Syndrom: Die westdeutschen Universitäten 1945–1989—Ein akademischer Sonderweg. In Mythos Humboldt: Vergangenheit und Zukunft der deutschen Universitäten , ed. Mitchell G. Ash, 58–79. Köln: Böhlau.

Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005. Designs on nature. Science and democracy in Europe and the United States . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Jaspers, Karl. 1923. Die Idee der Universität . Berlin: Springer.

Jaspers, Karl. 1946. Die Idee der Universität . Berlin: Springer.

Jewett, Frank B. 1944. The promise of technology. Science 99: 1–6.

Joerges, Bernward, and Terry Shinn. 2001. A fresh look at instrumentation. An introduction. In Instrumentation between science, state and industry , eds. Bernward Joerges, and Terry Shinn, 1–13. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Kaiser Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften. 1939. Tätigkeitsbericht der Kaiser Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften (April 1939 bis März 1939). Die Naturwissenschaften 27: 321–333.

Karns Alexander, Jennifer. 2012. Thinking again about science in technology. ISIS 103: 518–526.

Kevles, Daniel J. 1977. The National Science Foundation and the debate over postwar research policy, 1942–1945: A political interpretation of science—The endless frontier. ISIS 68: 4–26.

Kilgore, Harley M. 1945. Science and the government. Science 102: 630–638.

Killian, James R. 1959a. Capsule conclusions. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael Wolfle, 121–126. Washington, DC: American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.

Killian, James R. 1959b. Science and public policy. Recent Actions by the Federal Government in helping science and technology help the nation are surveyed. Science 129: 129–136.

Kistiakowsky, George B. 1966. Allocating support for basic research—And the importance of practical applications. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 21: 12–18.

Klein, Ursula. 2010. Ein Bergrat, zwei Minister und sechs Lehrende. Versuche der Gründung einer Bergakademie in Berlin um 1770. N.T.M. 18: 437–468.

Kline, Ronald. 1995. Construing “technology” as “applied science”. Public rhetoric of scientists and engineers in the United States, 1880–1945. ISIS 86: 194–221.

Kolloid-Gesellschaft. 1936. Bericht über die XI. Hauptversammlung der Kolloid-Gesellschaft am 21. und 22. September 1936 in Dresden. Kolloid-Zeitschrift 77: 153–161.

König, Wolfgang. 1999. 100 Jahre “Dr.-Ing.”. Ein “Ritterschlag der Wissenschaft”. Das Promotionsrecht der Technischen Hochschulen und der VDI Verein Deutscher Ingenieure . Düsseldorf: VDI-Verlag.

Koselleck, Reinhart. 2006. Begriffsgeschichten. Studien zur Semantik und Pragmatik der politischen und sozialen Sprache . Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.

Krauch, Carl. 1939. Forschung tut not! Der Vierjahresplan 3: 814–816.

Krauch, Carl. 1940. Forschung in Hochschule und Werk. Illustrierte Zeitung - Leipzig 195: 121–122.

Krauch, Carl. 1941. Über den Einsatz der Forschung im Rahmen des Vierjahresplans. Der Deutsche Chemiker 7: 1–2.

Krieck, Ernst. 1933. Der Neubau der Universität. Die deutsche Hochschule. Schriftenreihe zur Erneuerung und künftigen Gestaltung des gesamten deutschen Hochschulwesens 1: 1–7.

Krige, John. 2006. American hegemony and the postwar reconstruction of science in Europe . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Krige, John. 2010. Building the arsenal of knowledge. Centaurus 52: 280–296.

Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action . Cambridge/MA: Cambridge University Press.

Latour, Bruno. 1993. We have never been modern . Cambridge/MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leob, Leonard B. 1946. Scientific research and national welfare. Science 103: 540–541.

Leslie, Stuart W. 1993. The Cold War and American science. The military–industrial–academic complex at M.I.T. and Stanford . New York: Columbia University Press.

Lewin, Kurt. 1922. Der Begriff der Genese in Physik, Biologie und Entwicklungsgeschichte. Eine Untersuchung zur vergleichenden Wissenschaftslehre . Berlin: Springer.

Liebig, Justus Freiherr von. 1862. Die moderne Landwirthschaft als Beispiel der Gemeinnützigkeit der Wissenschaften. Rede in der öffentlichen Sitzung der k. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München am 28. November 1861 . Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.

Link, Jürgen. 1986. Interdiskurs, System der Kollektivsymbole, Literatur. Thesen zu einer generativen Diskurs- und Literaturtheorie. In Perspektiven des Verstehens , ed. Achim Eschbach, 128–146. Bochum: Studienverlag Dr. Nobert Brockmeyer.

Löhr, Hanns. 1938. Wesen und Sinn der nationalsozialistischen wissenschaftlichen Akademie des NSD-Dozentenbundes der Christian-Albrechts-Universität. In Grundfragen der deutschen Universität und Wissenschaft , ed. Reichsdozentenführung, 13–25. Neumünster: Karl Wachholz.

Lucier, Paul. 2012. The origins of pure and applied science in gilded age America. ISIS 103: 527–536.

Luxbacher, Günther. 2010. Werkstoff, Sparstoffe, Heimstoff. Metallforschung in Deutschland 1920–1970. In Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 1920–1970. Forschungsförderung im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft und Politik , eds. Karin Orth, and Willi Oberkrome, 163–181. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Marcus, Alan I. 1985. Agricultural science and the quest for legitimacy. Farmers, agricultural colleges and experiment stations, 1870–1890 . Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Mehrtens, Herbert. 1990. Moderne, Sprache, Mathematik. Eine Geschichte des Streits um die Grundlagen der Disziplin und des Subjekts formaler Systeme . Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.

Mehrtens, Herbert. 1994. Irresponsible purity: The political and moral structure of mathematical sciences in the National Socialist state. In Science, technology and National Socialism , eds. Monika Renneberg, and Mark Walker, 324–338. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meinel, Christoph. 1985. Reine und angewandte Chemie. Die Entstehung einer neuen Wissenschaftskonzeption in der Chemie der Aufklärung. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 8: 25–45.

Merton, Robert King. 1942. A note on science and democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115–126.

Mittelstraß, Jürgen. 1994. Leonardo-Welt. Über Wissenschaft, Forschung und Verantwortung . Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.

Moore, Jared S. 1945. The threat to pure science. Science 101: 62.

Morison, Robert S. 1959. Support of basic research from private philanthropy. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael Wolfle, 221–248. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Mowery, David C., and Nathan Rosenberg. 1993. The U.S. national innovation system. In National innovation systems. A comparative analysis , ed. Richard R. Nelson, 29–75. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nagel, Anne Chr. 2008. “Er ist der Schrecken überhaupt der Hochschule“ - Der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Dozentenbund in der Wissenschaftspolitik des Dritten Reichs. In Universitäten und Studenten im Dritten Reich. Bejahung, Anpassung, Widerstand. XIX Königswinterer Tagung vom 17.–19. Februar 2006 , eds. Joachim Scholtyseck, and Christoph Studt, 115–132. Berlin: LIT Verlag.

Niemeier, Georg. 1944. Grundlagenforschung und Zweckforschung. Physikalische Blätter 1: 106–109.

Nutting, P.G. 1917. Organized knowledge and national welfare. Science 46: 247–252.

OECD. 1976. The measurement of scientific and technical activities. Proposed standard practice for surveys of research and experimental development. Frascati manual . Paris: Director of Information, OECD.

Oppenheimer, Robert J. 1959. The need for new knowledge. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael Wolfle, 1–15. Washington, DC: American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.

Orth, Karin. 2011. Autonomie und Planung der Forschung. Förderpolitische Strategien der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft 1949–1968 . Stuttgart: Steiner.

Ostwald, Wilhelm. 1905. Theorie und Praxis. Zeitschrift des Österreichischen Ingenieur- und Architekten-Vereins 57: 3–9.

Ostwald, Wilhelm. 1908. Erfinder und Entdecker . Leipzig: Rütten & Loening.

Ostwald, Wilhelm. 1911. Die Wissenschaft. Vortrag, gehalten auf dem Ersten Monisten-Kongresse zu Hamburg am 10. September 1911 . Leipzig: Alfred Kröner.

Ostwald, Wilhelm. 1929. Was ist Wissenschaft? Archiv für Philosophie und Soziologie 33: 13–30.

Ostwald, Wolfgang. 1942. Kolloidchemische Probleme der Zellwolle-Forschung. Kolloid-Zeitschrift 98: 129–131.

Owens, Larry. 1994. The counterproductive management of science in the Second World War: Vannevar Bush and the Office of Scientific Research and Development. Business History Review 68: 515–576.

Pearson, John M. 1944. The opportunity of pure science. Science 100: 471–472.

Phillips, Melba. 1952. Dangers confronting American science. Science 116: 439–443.

Pielke Jr., Roger. 2012. ‘‘Basic research’’ as a political symbol. Minerva 50(3): 339–361.

Polanyi, Michael. 1962. The republic of science. Its political and economic theory. Minerva 1: 54–73.

Popp Berman, Elizabeth. 2012. Creating the market university. How academic science became a economic engine . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Potter, A.A. 1940. Research and invention in engineering colleges. Science 91: 1–7.

Price, Don K. 1962. The scientific establishment. The American system gives scientists in government a freedom and influence unmatched in other countries. Science 136: 1099–1106.

Rapoport, Anatol. 1957. Scientific approach to ethics. Science 125: 796–799.

Reagan, Michael D. 1967. Basic and applied research: A meaningful distinction? Science 155: 1383–1386.

Reichenbächer, Ernst. 1937. Gründzüge zu einer Theorie der Materie. Zeitschrift für Physik 107: 285–309.

Rein, F.H. 1946. Die gegenwärtige Situation der deutschen Universität. Universitas 1: 897–902.

Reingold, Nathan. 1987. Vannevar Bush’s new deal for research: Or the triumph of the old order. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 17: 299–344.

Reppe, Walter. 1950. Lenkungs- und Nachwuchsprobleme der Forschung. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 22: 1–5.

Richter, Rud. 1943. “The Anwendbarkeit” - als Brandmal der deutschen Wissenschaft. Natur und Volk. Bericht der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft 73: 205–207.

Riedler, Alois. 1900. Ueber die geschichtliche und zukünftige Bedeutung der Technik. Rede zum Geburtstagsfeste seiner Majestät des Kaisers und Königs Wilhelm II. in der Halle der Königlichen Technischen Hochschule zu Berlin am 26. Januar 1900 . [Halle].

Robbins, William J. 1941. The support of fundamental science. Science 94: 8.

Robin, Eugene V.D. 1944. The threat to pure science. Science 100: 519–521.

Ross, Sydney. 1962. Scientist. The story of a word. Annals of Science 18: 65–85.

Rössler, Constantin. 1857. System der Staatslehre . Leipzig: Falcke & Roessler.

Rulf, Friedrich. 1913. Über die Grundlagenforschung in der Geometrie. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 24: 142–158.

Runkel, Roland. 1942. Wesen, Ziele und Aufgaben der Zellwandforschung: Zugleich III: Mitteilung “Zur Kenntnis der Zellwände tropischer Laubhölzer“. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 5: 305–309.

Rust, Bernhard. 1940. Nationalsozialismus und Wissenschaft. Illustrierte Zeitung - Leipzig 195(118–119): 141.

Sachse, Carola. 2010. Bedingte Umbrüche: Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Politik in der Westdeutschen Nachkriegsgesellschaft. In Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 1920–1970. Forschungsförderung im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft und Politik , eds. Karin Orth, and Willi Oberkrome, 471–481. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Sayre, Wallace. 1961. Scientists and American science policy. Who speaks for science? The future offers more dilemmas than unequivocal answers in science policy. Science 133: 864–895.

Schatzberg, Eric. 2012. From art to applied science. ISIS 103: 555–563.

Schauz, Désirée. 2010. Diskursiver Wandel am Beispiel der Disziplinarmacht. Geschichtstheoretische Implikationen der Dispositivanalyse. In Diskursiver Wandel , ed. Achim Landwehr, 89–111. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Schultze, Joachim H. 1943. Grundlagenforschung und Zweckforschung in der Modernen Geographie. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 89: 193–203.

Schultze, Walter. 1938. Grundfragen der deutschen Universität und Wissenschaft. Rede des Reichsdozentenführers Reichsamtsleiter SS-Brigadeführer Professor Dr. Walter Schultze gehalten zu der Einweihung der ersten Akademie des NSD-Dozentenbundes in Kiel. In Grundfragen der deutschen Universität und Wissenschaft , ed. Reichsdozentenführung, 1–11. Neumünster: Karl Wachholz.

Science. 1942. Adjustments in the educational program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Science 95: 90–91.

Shapin, Steven. 2008. The scientific life. A moral history of a late modern vocation . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shapin, Steven. 2010. Never pure. Historical studies of science as if it was produced by people with bodies, situated in time, space, culture, and society, and struggling for credibility and authority . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Shepard, Ward. 1946. Science for democracy. Science 103: 65–68.

Shils, Edward A. 1956. The torment of secrecy. The background and consequences of American security policies . Glencoe (Ill): Free Press.

Simons, J.H. 1943. Research in wartime. Science 97: 390–392.

Sinnott, Edmund W. 1950. Ten million scientists. Science 111: 123–129.

Sörensen, E. 1952. Organisation der Forschung. Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure 94: 158–160.

Spaght, Monroe E. 1955. Basic research in industry. Science 121: 784–789.

Stadlinger, Hermann. 1944. Rationalisierung auch im chemischen Laboratorium! Chemiker-Zeitung 68: 224–229.

Steelman, John R. 1947a. Science and public policy . Vol. 3: Administration for Research. Washington, DC: U. S. Govt. Print. Off.

Steelman, John R. 1947b. Science and public policy. A report to the president . Vol. 1: A program for the nation. New York: Arno Press.

Steinsiek, Peter-Michael. 2008. Forst- und Holzforschung im “Dritten Reich” . Remagen: Verlag Kessel.

Stern, Alexander W. 1944. The threat to pure science. Science 100: 356.

Stern, Alexander W. 1945. Pure science. Science 101: 38.

Stock, Alfred. 1938. Rede auf der Hauptversammlung am 7. Mai 1938. Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft 71: 147–153.

Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant. Basic science and technological innovation . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Szent-Györgyi, Albert. 1957. Science, ethics, and politics. Science 125: 225–226.

Szöllösi-Janze, Margit. 2005. Science and social space: Transformations in the institutions of Wissenschaft from the Wilhelmine Empire to the Weimar Republic. Minerva 43: 339–360.

Taylor, Hugh S. 1944. The organization, direction and support of research in the physical sciences. Science 99: 249–256.

Taylor, William Palmer. 1953. Dangers for science? Science 118: 449–450.

Thelin, John R. 2004. A history of American higher education . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Tuve, Merle A. 1959. Basic research in private research institutes. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael Wolfle, 169–184. Washington, DC: The American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Venter, Craig J. 2007. A life decoded. My genome, my life . New York: Viking.

Verein Deutscher Chemiker. 1943. Versammlungsbericht: Institut für chemische Technologie synthetischer Fasern an der T.H. Breslau. Die Chemie N.F. 56: 61–62.

Vettel, Eric J. 2006. Biotech. The countercultural origins of an industry . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Vieweg, Richard. 1950. Über einige Fragen der Hochschulreform. Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure 92: 729–733.

Virchow, Rudolf. 1877. Die Freiheit der Wissenschaft im modernen Staat. Rede gehalten in der dritten allgemeinen Sitzung der fünfzigsten Versammlung deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte zu München am 22. September 1877 . Berlin: Wiegandt, Hempel & Parey.

Wagner, Patrick. 2010. “Reservat der Ordinarien”. Zur Geschichte der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft zwischen 1920 und 1970. In Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 1920–1970. Forschungsförderung im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaft und Politik , eds. Karin Orth, and Willi Oberkrome, 23–38. Stuttgart: Steiner.

Walden, Paul. 1946. Persönlichkeit und Leistung in der Naturwissenschaft. Universitas 1: 713–730.

Wang, Jessica. 1995. Liberals, the progressive left, and the political economy of postwar American science. The National Science Foundation debate. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 26: 139–166.

Wang, Jessica. 1999a. American science in an age of anxiety. Scientists, anticommunism, and the Cold War . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Wang, Jessica. 1999b. Merton’s shadow: Perspectives on science and democracy since 1940. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 30: 279–306.

Waterman, Alan T. 1951. Present role of the National Science Foundation. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 7: 165–167.

Waterman, Alan T. 1959. Basic research in the United States. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael. Wolfle, 17–40. Washington, DC: American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.

Waterman, Alan T. 1960. The role of the National Science Foundation. The Annals of The American Academy 327: 123–131.

Weaver, Warren. 1959. Preface. In Symposium on basic research , ed. Dael Wolfle, XI–XVII. Washington, DC: American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science.

Weaver, Warren. 1961. The moral un-neutrality of science. Science 133: 255–261.

Weidlein, Edward R. 1935. Various results of being researchful. Science 82: 553–556.

Weingart, Peter. 2008. Ökonomisierung der Wissenschaft. N.T.M. 16: 477–484.

Westwick, Peter J. 2000. Secret science: A classified community in the national laboratories. Minerva 38: 363–391.

Wever, Franz. 1952. Aufgaben und Wege der Eisenforschung. Stahl und Eisen 72: 1053–1055.

Willing, Willi. 1937. Rede anlässlich der Kundgebung des NSD-Dozentenbundes Gau Groß-Berlin. In Wissenschaft und Vierjahresplan , ed. NSD-Dozentenbundes Gau Groß-Berlin, 3–16. Berlin: NSD-Dozentenbund.

Witzell, Karl. 1944. Die Bedeutung von Wissenschaft und Forschung für die Entwicklung der Kampfmittel der Kriegsmarine. Nauticus. Jahrbuch für Deutschlands Seeinteressen 27: 205–223.

Zachary, G.P. 1997. Endless frontier. Vannevar Bush, engineer of the American century . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zenneck, J. 1944. Die Bedeutung der Forschung. Physikalische Blätter 1: 6–12.

Ziegelmayer, Wilhelm. 1936. Rohstoff-Fragen der deutschen Volksernährung. Eine Darstellung der ernährungswirtschaftlichen und ernährungswissenschaftlichen Aufgaben unserer Zeit . Dresden: Theodor Steinkopff.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Technische Universität München, Fachgebiet Technikgeschichte, c/o Deutsches Museum, Museumsinsel 1, 80538, Munich, Germany

Désirée Schauz

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Désirée Schauz .

Additional information

This article is part of a larger research project on changing notions of science in modern history funded by the VolkswagenStiftung. I would like to thank Isabelle Huber and Johannes Wittlinger for their competent research assistance. I am also grateful for the valuable comments and suggestions of Oliver Treib, Claudia Stein, Ulrich Wengenroth, Peter Weingart, Florian Schmaltz, Anne Sudrow and the two anonymous referees. Finally, I am much obliged to Gabrielle Robilliard for her careful language editing.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Schauz, D. What is Basic Research? Insights from Historical Semantics. Minerva 52 , 273–328 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9255-0

Download citation

Published : 24 June 2014

Issue Date : September 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-014-9255-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Basic research
• Applied research
• Pure science
• Applied science
• Historical semantics
• Science policy
• History of science
• United States of America
• 19th century
• 20th century
• Uncertainty
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

UNI physics faculty awarded National Science Foundation and Dept. of Energy research grants

UNI physics faculty have been awarded three National Science Foundation (NSF) and one Department of Energy (DOE) research grants. 

Physics faculty member  Tim Kidd is a Principal Investigator (PI) of a five-year, $20 million grant funded by the NSF to enhance research capacity and infrastructure for Iowa’s bioscience and advanced manufacturing industries. Physics faculty member  Ali Tabei will also be supported by this grant. The project, dubbed  Chemurgy 2.0 , is a large collaborative effort involving Iowa State University, the University of Iowa, UNI, Central College and Dordt University. Several other UNI faculty members from other departments are being supported by the grant as well. Kidd will serve as leader for the project’s Fibers for Flexible and Rigid materials component.

Read more about Chemurgy 2.0 on Inside UNI and in the 2024 Alumni Magazine

The second grant provides $550,000 through the NSF over a three-year period to study the incorporation of carbon atoms into layered materials with highly two-dimensional crystal structures in collaboration with Texas Tech University. This project is led by  Andrew Stollenwerk  with co-PIs Tim Kidd and Rui He (Texas Tech). This research will investigate materials with possible applications in devices such as LEDs, lasers, optical sensors and quantum computers.

Tim Kidd is PI for the third grant – a three-year, $800,000 NSF grant to study materials that can be used for quantum information storage and processing. In addition, the Physics Department will develop coursework and outreach activities centered on quantum information science and engineering. This grant is also collaborative, involving Iowa State University. Physics faculty members  Pavel Lukashev and  Paul Shand will also be supported by this grant. Kidd and his collaborators will investigate atomic centers in layered materials that have magnetic properties that will enable them to serve as qubits, the basic elements of quantum computing.

The fourth grant through the DOE provides $500,000 over three years to study magnetic and electrical properties at the interface between layered materials. The goal of this project is to identify next generation materials with applications in data storage and spintronic based quantum computing. This grant is led by Tim Kidd and co-PIs Andrew Stollenwerk, Pavel Lukashev and Paul Shand. In addition to advancing basic science and identifying new materials with practical applications, these four grants support student training to enter the workforce.

U.S. News & World Report ranks UNI among 2024 Best Graduate Schools

UNI Department of Art students present spring 2024 BFA group exhibition

UNI’s Danny Galyen earns “lifetime achievement award” for band directors

Search Cornell

Class Roster

Section menu.

• Toggle Navigation
• Summer 2024
• Spring 2024
• Winter 2024
• Archived Rosters

Last Updated

• Schedule of Classes - April 9, 2024 7:33PM EDT
• Course Catalog - April 9, 2024 7:07PM EDT

COGST 4250 Translational Research on Decision Making

Course description.

Course information provided by the Courses of Study 2023-2024 . Courses of Study 2024-2025 is scheduled to publish mid-June.

Introductory laboratory-based course focusing on basic foundations in translational research on decision making across the lifespan. The course introduces students to hands-on applications of research skills in the context of research on decision making, spanning basic and applied research in law, medicine, behavioral economics, and policy. It focuses on such topics as human subjects protection, working with populations across the lifespan (e.g., children, seniors), database development, working with external partners and stakeholders (e.g., schools, hospitals), and basic concepts and techniques in decision research. Students participate in weekly laboratory meetings in small teams focused on specific projects as well as monthly meetings in which all teams participate. During laboratory meetings, students discuss ongoing research, plans for new studies, and interpretations of empirical findings from studies that are in progress or have been recently completed. New students work closely with experienced students and eventually work more independently. In order to fully grasp how the research projects fit into the broader field, students read relevant papers weekly and write reaction responses. Because several projects are ongoing at all times, students have the opportunity to be involved in more than one study and are assigned multiple tasks such as piloting research paradigms, subject recruitment, data collection, data analysis, and data entry. Students attend a weekly lab meeting for 1.5 hours per week, read pertinent papers, write reaction responses, and work 10.5 hours per week in the laboratory completing tasks that contribute to ongoing research studies.

When Offered Fall.

Prerequisites/Corequisites Prerequisite: HD 1150 or HD 1170 or PSYCH 1101 also HD 2830 and HD 4750 and HD 4760.

Distribution Category (SCD-AS)

• Be able to know and evaluate evidence-based hypotheses.

View Enrollment Information

  Regular Academic Session.   Combined with: HD 4250

Credits and Grading Basis

4 Credits Stdnt Opt (Letter or S/U grades)

Class Number & Section Details

 5509 COGST 4250   LAB 401

Meeting Pattern

• M 2:00pm - 4:30pm To Be Assigned
• Aug 26 - Dec 9, 2024

Instructors

To be determined. There are currently no textbooks/materials listed, or no textbooks/materials required, for this section. Additional information may be found on the syllabus provided by your professor.

For the most current information about textbooks, including the timing and options for purchase, see the Cornell Store .

Additional Information

Instruction Mode: In Person

Instructor Consent Required (Add)

Or send this URL:

Available Syllabi

About the class roster.

The schedule of classes is maintained by the Office of the University Registrar . Current and future academic terms are updated daily . Additional detail on Cornell University's diverse academic programs and resources can be found in the Courses of Study . Visit The Cornell Store for textbook information .

Please contact [email protected] with questions or feedback.

If you have a disability and are having trouble accessing information on this website or need materials in an alternate format, contact [email protected] for assistance.

Cornell University ©2024