Quote:
Originally Posted by evman150
It seems practicality and general need are not key criteria for determining research topics and funding.
This is the statement that indicates you don't know what you're talking about.
Those things are not key criteria for a reason. It's because most of the time you never know what applications your research will have. Yes there is directed research. But the real science lies in pure research, not aiming at any end. An end in mind only constrains research, limiting and attenuating the body of knowledge obtained.
Really, there is no "pointless" research. There is research that ends up being pointless, but you cannot make that supposition before hand.
|
My background is in engineering research, which tends to be very directly toward direct applications and practicality. The point I was trying to make is that I personally believe research dollars should be allocated to research that is both practical and directly applicable to the needs of the world today. A lot of research is started with a particular purpose in mind. Any industry funded research within engineering and sciences tends to be driven by a purpose, not just to experiment and try to find stuff out. I'm speaking from a practical standpoint. I'm not saying that research without an aim isn't "real research", what I'm saying is that public dollars should go to research that has a purpose to help the public. Medical research, alternative energy research, and pollution control research would be just a few examples. To say that in most research the potential applications aren't known is a stretch, considering any industry-funded research tends to be paid for for a reason. The companies involved aren't just nice guys hoping scientists and engineers find out something interesting and potentially useful.
To say that I don't know what I'm talking about seems a bit coarse to me, as if you were offended by what I said and were looking to take a shot at me personally.