(This post is a crystallization of my thoughts set off by Arko's brilliant post, and its equally lively comments thread. Do visit it http://thrudlukingglass.blogspot.com/2010/06/lets-talk-about-science.html )
What's the exact value of a research done anywhere just now? My answer would be nobody knows, especially if its theoretical, as you would need a technologist to define it and give it a shape. Such answers are sadly not welcomed by several people, from those jhola-kurta liberals who believe all big science wastes money, Ludderites who believe technology is evil, to some scientists themselves keen on classifying some work as trash while others are not.
One point that scientists agree mostly that the true value of science can never be gauged just now, and especially not by your average layman (no insult to him ) as you might not even know how those works are actually affecting your daily life. Examples abound. Number theory may seem esoteric but it is what underpins a lot of communication and encryption protocols. And half of India's population are cell phone users. Quantum physics may sound foreboding but it is what is making solid state devices exist today. Probability is not just about playing Russian roulette, but is used everywhere from stock markets to weather prediction. As I said, many things or disciplines in science you have no inkling about do actually have enormously practical consequences. Just because you never heard about them, does not mean they shouldn't exist! And science, especially now is even more about "Standing on the shoulders of giants" A new discovery now is built upon so many previous layers of knowledge, that if you start peeling back, you may reach upto Aristotle!
OK, now the second even more underhand attack. We pay taxes, taxes pay science. So what about the social accountability of scientists? And if they are rude enough, "Isn't LHC a big waste??" The answer is no. Many things are a big waste of your money. Free treatment at state-run hospitals. It mostly goes to the people who have never paid a paisa in taxes till now. So why don't we call it a waste? Science has actually provided the technologies to common man. If they are not implemented why blame them? After all why do you elect people? What are they for? What is the entire state machinery and bureaucracy for? When did policy implementation become a scientist's job? My only solution there, in those posts, do not nominate a person with a background of English literature, elect a scientist. However that may not always be best idea too. At least in India, the scientists who lust the most for administrative posts usually have the worst record of original research. But hey they can at least appreciate the work done better. And as for LHC being a waste, how do you know? Have you seen the future? How can you write off something before it's even started? Most, if not all seminal scientific discoveries have pedestrian applications down the road. Subjects often called esoteric like astrophysics are also actually important. Because it is astrophysics that is shining the flashlight in our inconsistencies in our theoretical understanding of physics. That gaps if fulfilled may well help us in harnessing and developing better technologies. In the last decades of the nineteenth century after Maxwell's laws became known physicists thought we almost knew almost everything that was in theoretical physics. Poincare's works must have felt like idle waste of time to some at that time. But they directly led to relativity and quantum mechanics, and today a 100 years on we know how seminal and important they were. So I would not have the temerity to call science a waste, ever.
I can't resist here from quoting Rahul's awesome comment on Arko's blog
"It really is the desire to know more about nature that drives research. It is a sacred journey, a journey with lots of bumps along the way, but people always march forward with persistence. Only through acquiring more knowledge do you actually realize which ones can be used for the betterment of the human race. You cannot gain directional access to a particular set of knowledge that happens to be useful. Had we known what to discover to benefit us, it would not be a discovery any more; we would be doing a clerk's job. Such a circumstance would have indeed been very nice! But sadly we don't have it. So we need researchers to explore unexplored territory. We don't know in advance what we are going to get or if it is going to be useful or not. If we knew what to research, we might as well have clerks doing it (By the way a clerk does a very important job so that society runs smoothly). Outcome is never the purpose driving research - it is curiosity and a desire to know more about nature's mysteries."
And lastly, or the last vestige of an argument: Surely some work is seminal, some is trash. People often define trash that:
- is not published in a high impact factor journal
- is not path breaking
- essentially is an improvement over a previous technology
Stop for a moment and think about computers you saw in your childhood. Nowadays computers are so much more cheaper, faster, lighter yet consume far less power. And they are getting better by the day. Think about Bardeen's transistor and todays ones in a high performance Intel chip. Are they even remotely comparable? But by our logic of trash, much of this work was incremental, evolutionary rather than revolutionary, a very small step at a time, and most of it not remotely path-breaking. We tend to glorify the explorers, but Columbus did not make America the powerhouse it is today. We need both of them, the pioneers to broaden our horizons and to show us new paths, and also those men and women, the incrementalists to smoothen that path. These are the unsung researchers who finally make theory a reality, but theirs is the most thankless job. Some papers may be published just for the sake of increasing your publishing count, but then no good journal would accept that. We need tighter editing standards, not calling all incremental work trash.
I would like to finish off my rant by telling the story of ISRO. ISRO now earns a handsome amount of foreign exchange for India by hiring out its satellite launching facilities at some of the cheapest rates in the world. Apart from that they are the pride of almost every Indian. But ISRO while being set-up faced stiff opposition, with the phrases elitist, wasteful, we do not need it bandied about. Here's what two ISRO people have to say:
"There are some who question the relevance of space activities in a developing nation. To us, there is no ambiguity of purpose. We do not have the fantasy of competing with the economically advanced nations in the exploration of the moon or the planets or manned space-flight. But we are convinced that if we are to play a meaningful role nationally, and in the community of nations, we must be second to none in the application of advanced technologies to the real problems of man and society."
-Vikram Sarabhai
"Many individuals with myopic vision questioned the relevance of space activities in a newly independent nation, which was finding it difficult to feed its population. Their vision was clear if Indians were to play meaningful role in the community of nations, they must be second to none in the application of advanced technologies to their real-life problems. They had no intention of using it as a mean to display our might."
-A.P.J. Abdul Kalam
