Practical Research is the Natural Outgrowth of Pure Research

This is a midterm paper for my Physics Ethics class, due tomorrow. I like it enough to post it for all the world to see. Hope you enjoy!

A physicist does research, that is his job. He advances the field and discovers the secrets of the universe. However, when a physicist is choosing which topic to pursue next, he must inevitably choose between practical or pure research. For this paper, practical research will be defined as research whose aim is a final product or process while pure research will be defined as research into something that has no foreseeable practical applications. A product shall be defined as a resulting technology, theory, or process that practical research aims for.

Those who would argue that practical research should be preferred to pure research would claim that practical research is better on economic, technological, and scientific advancement grounds. First, they would say that it is easier to do research into things because of money. When you have a product in mind before you begin research, you can more easily sell it to someone who will be funding you, and you can help offset the costs of the research by the profit the product can make. Second, practical research has distinct possibilities to invent new technologies. When your aim is to finish a product or process, you will end up with a few secondary technologies and the final product will most likely improve lives, be it a treatment for cancer or a faster computer chip. Third, they would claim that science advances when you have working results from your research.

However, I believe that pure research is just as valuable as practical research. While practical research will result in one final product, a few secondary products, and possibly a new avenue for research, pure research results in opportunities for practical research, secondary products, and many new avenues of research. While this is not always the case, and some research is into a dead end, the most notable research that made the largest impacts on modern life were Newton, Einstein, Faraday, and Coulomb. All of these men were researching something that had no ‘final product’ in sight, but ended up building the foundations of modern science.

I would like to think of science as analogous to a tree. As we learn more, we climb up the tree. The fruit of this tree are the products that make our lives better, and the leaves are the secondary, minor products. When you begin your research, you can see some of what will be on the branch. The practical research are those that you can tell there is fruit at the end. Any leaves that you happen to run into along the way are counted as bonuses to your research. Some branches are dead, and are not fruitful in the end, while others have more than one fruit hanging off. However, pure research can often times be a large supporting branch, leading off to many fruitful twigs. While it may be long, tedious, and expensive for not reaching any leaves or fruit, when you end up with dozens of new fruit laden branches to explore at the end, is that not worth the effort?

I believe pure research is worth the cost because it is the foundation on which practical research is based. If there were no pure research, science would still advance, but at a much slower pace. The practical research is not useless, but I think both should be taken as different steps along the same path: practical research will result in a final product, and pure research will result in practical research. Without practical research, pure research could still exist, but it would be fruitless, and without pure research practical research could exist, but it would be nearsighted and narrow-minded. Both are honorable to pursue, and every scientist should respect those who have built the foundation for his research and those who build upon his.