View source for Basic research

{{short description|Scientific discovery and improvement of scientific knowledge}}
{{broader|Research}}
{{Science}}

'''Basic research''', also called '''pure research''', '''fundamental research''', '''basic science''', or '''pure science''', is a type of [[scientific research]] with the aim of improving scientific [[Theory|theories]] for better understanding and [[Prediction#Science|prediction]] of natural or other phenomena.<ref name="Research2014avg2">{{cite web |title=What is basic research? |url=https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1953/annualreports/ar_1953_sec6.pdf |access-date=2014-05-31 |publisher=National Science Foundation}}</ref>  In contrast, [[applied research]] uses scientific theories to develop [[technology]] or techniques, which can be used to intervene and ''alter'' natural or other phenomena. Though often driven simply by [[curiosity]],<ref name="NIGMS">[http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Education/factsheet_CuriosityCreatesCures.htm "Curiosity creates cures: The value and impact of basic research] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020130308/http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Education/factsheet_CuriosityCreatesCures.htm|date=October 20, 2013}}, [[National Institute of General Medical Sciences]], [[National Institutes of Health]].</ref> basic research often fuels the [[technological innovation]]s of [[applied science]].<ref>[http://www.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/value-scientific-research "ICSU position statement: The value of basic scientific research"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170506184955/http://www.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/value-scientific-research|date=2017-05-06}}, International Council for Science, December 2004.</ref>  The two aims are often practiced simultaneously in coordinated [[research and development]].

In addition to innovations, basic research also serves to provide insight into nature around us and allows us to respect its innate value.<ref>{{Cite book |first=Ed |last=Yong |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1333131287 |title=An Immense World |date=2022 |publisher=Random House Publishing Group |isbn=978-0-593-13324-8 |oclc=1333131287}}</ref> The development of this respect is what drives conservation efforts. Through learning about the environment, conservation efforts can be strengthened using research as a basis.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Cook |first1=Carly N. |last2=Mascia |first2=Michael B. |last3=Schwartz |first3=Mark W. |last4=Possingham |first4=Hugh P. |last5=Fuller |first5=Richard A. |date=2013-04-10 |title=Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary |journal=Conservation Biology |language=en |volume=27 |issue=4 |pages=669–678 |doi=10.1111/cobi.12050 |issn=0888-8892 |pmc=3761186 |pmid=23574343|bibcode=2013ConBi..27..669C }}</ref> Technological innovations can unintentionally be created through this as well, as seen with examples such as kingfishers' beaks affecting the design for high speed bullet train in Japan.<ref>{{Cite web |title=High Speed Train Inspired by the Kingfisher — Innovation — AskNature |url=https://asknature.org/innovation/high-speed-train-inspired-by-the-kingfisher/ |access-date=2022-11-29 |website=asknature.org |language=en-US}}</ref>

==Overview==
{{quote box | width=25em| bgcolor=#B0C4DE |align=right|qalign=left |quote=<div style="text-align:left;">'''Despite smart people working on this problem for 50 years, we're still discovering surprisingly basic things about the earliest history of our world. It's quite humbling.''' &mdash; Matija Ćuk, scientist at the [[SETI Institute]] and lead researcher, November 2016<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.inverse.com/article/23062-earth-moon-history-axis-tilt |title=Why is the Earth Tilted? New Theory Offers Clues on a Dizzy Moment |author=Jacqueline Ronson |date=November 1, 2016 |publisher=[[Inverse (website)|Inverse]] |access-date=October 18, 2017}}</ref> 
</div> |}}
Basic research advances fundamental knowledge about the world. It focuses on creating and [[Falsifiability|refuting or supporting]] [[scientific theory|theories]] that explain observed phenomena. Pure research is the source of most new scientific ideas and ways of thinking about the world. It can be [[Exploratory research|exploratory]], [[Descriptive research|descriptive]], or explanatory; however, explanatory research is the most common.{{Citation needed|date=May 2018}}

Basic research generates new ideas, principles, and theories, which may not be immediately utilized but nonetheless form the basis of progress and development in different fields. Today's computers, for example, could not exist without research in pure mathematics conducted over a century ago, for which there was no known practical application at the time. Basic research rarely helps practitioners directly with their everyday concerns; nevertheless, it stimulates new ways of thinking that have the potential to revolutionize and dramatically improve how practitioners deal with a problem in the future.{{Citation needed|date=May 2018}}

==History==
{{Expand section|date=October 2023}}

==By country==
{{globalize|date=October 2017}}
In the United States, basic research is funded mainly by federal government and done mainly at universities and institutes.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/08/bell-labs-kills.html |first=Priya |last=Ganapati |title=Bell Labs kills fundamental physics research |date=2008-08-27 |access-date=2008-08-28 |magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080828233520/http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/08/bell-labs-kills.html| archive-date= 28 August 2008 | url-status= live}}</ref>  As government funding has diminished in the 2010s, however, private funding is increasingly important.<ref name=NYT31514>{{cite news|author1=William J. Broad|title=Billionaires with big ideas are privatizing American science|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html|access-date=December 26, 2014|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=March 15, 2014}}</ref>

== Basic versus applied science ==
{{Main|Applied science|Translational research}}
Applied science focuses on the development of technology and techniques. In contrast, basic science develops scientific knowledge and predictions, principally in [[natural science]]s but also in other empirical sciences, which are used as the scientific foundation for applied science. Basic science develops and establishes ''information'' to predict phenomena and perhaps to understand nature, whereas [[applied science]] uses portions of basic science to develop ''interventions'' via technology or technique to alter events or outcomes.<ref name=Davis>{{cite journal |title=Limited scope of science|journal=Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews|volume=64|issue=1|pages=1–12|doi=10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000|pmid=10704471|pmc=98983|date=March 2000|last1=Davis|first1=Bernard D.}} & "Technology" in {{cite journal |author=Bernard Davis |author-link1=Bernard Davis (biologist) |pmid=10704471 |title=The scientist's world |journal=[[Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews]] |date=Mar 2000  |volume=64 |issue=1 |pages=1–12 |doi=10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000 |pmc=98983}}</ref><ref name=McCormick>{{cite journal |author=James McCormick |pmid=19790950 |pmc=2560978 |title=Scientific medicine—fact of fiction? The contribution of science to medicine |journal=Occasional Paper (Royal College of General Practitioners) |number=80 |year=2001 |pages=3–6}}</ref> Applied and basic sciences can interface closely in [[research and development]].<ref name=Piel>Gerard Piel, "Science and the next fifty years", § "Applied vs basic science", ''[[Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]]'', 1954 Jan;'''10'''(1):17–20, [https://books.google.com/books?id=rA0AAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18&dq=fundamental+science p 18].</ref><ref>Ruth-Marie E Fincher, Paul M Wallach & W Scott Richardson, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771241 "Basic science right, not basic science lite: Medical education at a crossroad"], ''Journal of General Internal Medicine'', Nov 2009;'''24'''(11):1255–58, abstract: "Thoughtful changes in education provide the opportunity to improve understanding of fundamental sciences, the process of scientific inquiry, and translation of that knowledge to clinical practice".</ref> The interface between basic research and applied research has been studied by the National Science Foundation.  <blockquote>A worker in basic scientific research is motivated by a driving curiosity about the unknown. When his explorations yield new knowledge, he experiences the satisfaction of those who first attain the summit of a mountain or the upper reaches of a river flowing through unmapped territory. Discovery of truth and understanding of nature are his objectives. His professional standing among his fellows depends upon the originality and soundness of his work. Creativeness in science is of a cloth with that of the poet or painter.<ref name=Research2014avg>{{cite web| title = What is basic research? | publisher = National Science Foundation| url = https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1953/annualreports/ar_1953_sec6.pdf| access-date = 2014-05-31 }}</ref></blockquote>It conducted a study in which it traced the relationship between basic scientific research efforts and the development of major innovations, such as oral contraceptives and videotape recorders.  This study found that basic research played a key role in the development in all of the innovations.  The number of basic science research{{Clarify|reason=Number of what: Studies? The English-language expression of the thought whose conveyance was attempted here could be improved.|date=May 2017}} that assisted in the production of a given innovation peaked between 20 and 30 years before the innovation itself.  While most innovation takes the form of applied science and most innovation occurs in the private sector, basic research is a necessary precursor to almost all applied science and associated instances of innovation.  Roughly 76% of basic research is conducted by universities.<ref>{{Cite book|title=How Economics Shapes Science|last=Stephan|first=Paula|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2012|isbn=978-0-674-04971-0|location=Cambridge, MA|pages=146}}</ref>

A distinction can be made between basic science and disciplines such as medicine and technology.<ref name=Davis/><ref name=McCormick/><ref name="Smith">{{cite journal|author=Richard Smith|date=Mar 2006|title=The trouble with medical journals|journal=Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine|volume=99|issue=3|pages=115–9|doi=10.1177/014107680609900311|pmc=1383755|pmid=16508048}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Leon Eisenberg |author-link=Leon Eisenberg |title=Science in medicine: Too much or too little and too limited in scope? |journal=American Journal of Medicine |volume=84 |issue=3 Pt 1 |pages=483–91 |date=Mar 1988 |pmid=3348249 |doi=10.1016/0002-9343(88)90270-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=J N Clarke |author2=S Arnold |author3=M Everest |author4=K Whitfield |name-list-style=amp |title=The paradoxical reliance on allopathic medicine and positivist science among skeptical audiences |journal=Social Science & Medicine |volume=64 |issue=1 |pages=164–73 |date=Jan 2007  |pmid=17045377 |doi=10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.038}}</ref>  They can be grouped as ''STM'' (science, technology, and medicine; not to be confused with ''STEM'' [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics]) or ''[[Science, technology, and society|STS]]'' (science, technology, and society). These groups are interrelated and influence each other,<ref name="Holtzman">{{cite journal|author=Eric Holtzman|year=1981|title=Science, philosophy, and society: Some recent books|journal=International Journal of Health Services|volume=11|issue=1|pages=123–49|doi=10.2190/l5eu-e7pc-hxg6-euml|pmid=7016767|s2cid=25401644}}</ref><ref name="Strong-McPherson">{{cite journal|author=P M Strong PM|author2=K McPherson|name-list-style=amp|year=1982|title=Natural science and medicine: Social science and medicine: Some methodological controversies|journal=Social Science & Medicine|volume=16|issue=6|pages=643–57|doi=10.1016/0277-9536(82)90454-3|pmid=7089600}}</ref><ref name="Karhausen">{{cite journal|author=Lucien R Karhausen|year=2000|title=Causation: The elusive grail of epidemiology|journal=Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy|volume=3|issue=1|pages=59–67|doi=10.1023/A:1009970730507|pmid=11080970|s2cid=24260908}}</ref><ref name=Bayertz-Nevers>{{cite journal |author=K Bayertz |author2=P Nevers |name-list-style=amp |title=Biology as technology |journal=Clio Medica |volume=48 |pages=108–32 |year=1998 |pmid=9646019}}</ref><ref name=Pickstone-Worboys>{{cite journal |author=John V Pickstone |author2=Michael Worboys |name-list-style=amp |title=Focus: Between and beyond 'histories of science' and 'histories of medicine'—introduction |journal=Isis |volume=102 |issue=1 |pages=97–101 |date=Mar 2011  |pmid=21667777 |doi=10.1086/658658|s2cid=224835675 }}</ref> although they may differ in the specifics such as methods and standards.<ref name=McCormick/><ref name=Smith/><ref name=Pickstone-Worboys/><ref>
{{cite journal |author=Lester S King |title=Medicine in the USA: Historical vignettes: XI: Medicine seeks to be 'scientific' |journal=JAMA |volume=249 |issue=18 |pages=2475–9 |date=May 1983  |pmid=6341631 |doi=10.1001/jama.1983.03330420025028}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Thomas Marshall |title=Scientific knowledge in medicine: A new clinical epistemology? |journal=Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=133–8 |date=Apr 1997  |pmid=9276588 |doi=10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00075.x}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=A Zalewski |title=Importance of philosophy of science to the history of medical thinking |journal=Croatian Medical Journal |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=8–13 |date=Mar 1999  |pmid=9933889 |url=http://www.cmj.hr/1999/40/1/9933889.htm}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Kevork Hopayian |title=Why medicine still needs a scientific foundation: Restating the hypotheticodeductive model—part two |journal=British Journal of General Practice |volume=54 |issue=502 |pages=402–3 |date=May 2004  |pmid=15372724 |pmc=1266186}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=A Skurvydas |title=New methodology in biomedical science: Methodological errors in classical science |journal=Medicina |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=7–16 |year=2005 |pmid=15687745 |url=http://medicina.kmu.lt/0501/0501-02e.htm |access-date=2015-03-08 |archive-date=2005-11-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051104063456/http://medicina.kmu.lt/0501/0501-02e.htm |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Ronald A Arky |title=Abe Flexner, where are you? We need you! |journal=Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association |volume=118 |pages=89–96 |year=2007 |pmid=18528492 |pmc=1863593}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Peter Byass |title=The democratic fallacy in matters of clinical opinion: Implications for analysing cause-of-death data |journal=Emerging Themes in Epidemiology |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=1 |year=2011 |pmid=21223568 |pmc=3026021 |doi=10.1186/1742-7622-8-1 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=M Brandon Westover |author2=Kenneth D Westover KD |author3=Matt T Bianchi |name-list-style=amp |title=Significance testing as perverse probabilistic reasoning |journal=BMC Medicine |volume=9 |pages=20 |year=2011 |pmid=21356064 |pmc=3058025 |doi=10.1186/1741-7015-9-20 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Alfredo Morabia  |title=Epidemiological causality |journal=History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences |volume=27 |issue=3–4 |pages=365–79 |year=2005 |pmid=16898206}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Michael Kundi |author-link=Michael Kundi  |title=Causality and the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |volume=114 |issue=7 |pages=969–74 |date=July 2006  |pmid=16835045 |pmc=1513293 |doi=10.1289/ehp.8297}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Andrew C Ward |title=The role of causal criteria in causal inferences: Bradford Hill's 'aspects of association' |journal=Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations |volume=6 |pages=2 |year=2009 |pmid=19534788 |pmc=2706236 |doi=10.1186/1742-5573-6-2 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Georg W Kreutzberg |title=Scientists and the marketplace of opinions: Scientific credibility takes on a different meaning when reaching out to the public |journal=EMBO Reports |volume=6 |issue=5 |pages=393–6 |date=May 2005  |pmid=15864285 |pmc=1299311 |doi=10.1038/sj.embor.7400405}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=John Worrall |author-link=John Worrall (philosopher) |title=Evidence: Philosophy of science meets medicine |journal=Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=356–62 |date=Apr 2010  |pmid=20367864 |doi=10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01400.x}}</ref>

The [[Nobel Prize]] mixes basic with applied sciences for its award in [[Physiology or Medicine]]. In contrast, the [[Royal Society of London]] awards distinguish natural science from applied science.<ref>"[http://royalsociety.org/awards/medals-awards-prizes Medals, Awards & Prize lectures]", [[Royal Society of London|The Royal Society]] website, accessed 22 Sep 2013.</ref>

==See also==
* [[Blue skies research]]
* [[Hard and soft science]]
* [[Metascience]]
* [[Normative science]]
* [[Physics]]
* [[Precautionary principle]]
* [[Pure mathematics]]
* [[Pure Chemistry]]

==References==
{{reflist|35em}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite encyclopedia |last1=Levy |first1=David M. |author-link= <!--there is an article about David M. Levy, but it does not look like he is the author of this article.--> |editor= David R. Henderson |editor-link= David R. Henderson |encyclopedia=[[Concise Encyclopedia of Economics]] |title=Research and Development |url=http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/ResearchandDevelopment.html |year=2002 |edition= 1st |publisher=[[Library of Economics and Liberty]] }} {{OCLC|317650570|50016270|163149563}}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Research]]