A Historical Perspective on the Distinction Between Basic and Applied Science

Article

Abstract

The traditional distinction between basic (“pure”) and applied science has been much criticized in recent decades. The criticism is based on a combination of historical and systematic epistemic argument. The present paper is mostly concerned with the historical aspect. I argue that the critics impose an understanding at odds with the way the distinction was understood by its supporters in debates on science education and science policy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. And I show how a distinction that refers to difference on several epistemic and social dimensions makes good sense of representative historical cases. If this argument is tenable it suggests more continuity in the epistemology and politics of science than has been claimed by a new paradigm of science studies and politics during recent decades.

Keywords

Pure science Basic/applied OECD research statistics “Ivory tower” 

References

  1. Barker, G., & Kitcher, P. (2013). Philosophy of science. A new introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bentley, P. J., Gulbrandsen, M., & Kyvik, S. (2016). The relationship between basic and applied research in universities. Higher Education, 70, 689–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernal, J. D. (1939). The social function of science. NewYork: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Biffen, R. H. (1917). Systematized plant breeding. In Seward 1917 (pp. 146–175).Google Scholar
  5. Broberg, G., & Roll-Hansen, N. (1996). Eugenics and the welfare state. Sterilization policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland (2nd edition with a new preface 2005). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bucharin, N. I. (1931). Theory and practice from the standpoint of dialectical materialism. In N. I. Bucharin et al. (Eds.) Science at the cross roads. London: Frank Cass (Second edition 1971 with new foreword by Joseph Needham and new introduction by P.G. Werskey).Google Scholar
  7. Bud, R. (2012). ‘Applied Science’. A phrase in search of meaning. Isis, 103, 537–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calvert, J. (2004). The idea of ‘Basic Research’ in language and practice. Minerva, 42, 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, S. (2010). Pure science with a practical aim: The meanings of fundamental research in Britain, circa 1916–1950. Isis, 101, 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  11. Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas, H. (2014). Pure science and the problem of progress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 46, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edgerton, D. (2002). ‘The Linear Model’ did not exist. In K. Grandin, N. Wormbs, & S. Widmalm (Eds.), The science-industry nexus. History, policy, implications (pp. 31–57). New York: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Forman, P. (2007). The primacy of science in modernity, of technology in postmodernity, and of ideology in the history of technology. History and Technology, 23, 1–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., & Scott, P. (2011). Revisiting Mode 2 at Noor’s slott. Prometheus, 29, 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godin, B. (2005). Measurement and statistics on science and technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Godin, B. (2015). Innovation contested: The idea of innovation over the centuries. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gooday, G. (2012). ’Vague and Artificial’. The historically elusive distinction between pure and applied science. Isis, 103, 546–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gulbrandsen, M., & Kyvik, S. (2010). Are the concepts of basic research, applied research and experimental development still useful? An empirical investigation among Norwegian academics. Science and Public Policy, 37, 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gulbrandsen, M., & Langfeldt, L. (2004). In search of ‘Mode 2’: The nature of knowledge production in Norway. Minerva, 42, 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guston, D. (2000). Between science and politics. Assuring integrity and productivity of research. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamlin, C. (2016). The pedagogical roots of the history of science: Revisiting the vision of James Bryant Conant. Isis, 107, 282–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harwood, J. (2015). Did Mendelism transform plant breeding? Genetic theory and breeding practice. In D. Philips & S. Kingsley (Eds.), New perspectives on the history of life sciences and agriculture (pp. 345–370). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Science and human values. In C. G. Hempel (Ed.), Aspects of explanation, and other essays in the philosophy of science (pp. 81–96). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hopkins, F. G. (1917). Medicine and experimental science. In Seward 1917 (pp. 228–255).Google Scholar
  27. Huxley, T. H. (1881). Science and culture. In T. H. Huxley (Ed.), Science and culture, and other essays (pp. 1–23). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Huxley, J. S. (1934). Scientific research and social needs. London: Watts & Co.Google Scholar
  29. Kitcher, P. (1997). An argument about free inquiry. Noûs, 31(1997), 279–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kitcher, P. (2004). On the autonomy of the sciences. Philosophy Today, Supplement 2004 (New directions in the philosophy of science): 51–57.Google Scholar
  32. Kitcher, P. (2011a). Science in a democratic society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  33. Kitcher, P. (2011b). Second thoughts. In W. J. Gozalez (Ed.), Scientific realism and democratic society: The philosophy of Philip Kitcher (pp. 353–389). Amsterdam: Rodipi.Google Scholar
  34. Lucier, P. (2012). The origins of pure and applied science in gilded age America. Isis, 103, 527–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meinel, C. (1985). Reine und angewandte Chemie. Die Entstehung einer neuen Wissenschaftskonzeption in der Chemie der Aufklärung. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 8, 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Merton, R. (1938). Science and the social order. Philosophy of Science 5: 321–37. Reprinted in Merton (1968) The sociology of science (pp. 254–264). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Moulton, J. F. (1917). Introduction. In Seward 1917 (pp. iix–xx).Google Scholar
  38. Niiniluoto, I. (1993). The aim and structure of applied research. Erkenntnis, 38, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Niiniluoto, I. (2013). On the philosophy of applied social sciences. In H. Andersen et al. (Eds.), New challenges to philosophy of science. The philosophy of science in a European perspective 4 (pp. 265–274). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Niiniluoto, I. (2014). Values in design sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 46, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nordmann, A. (2011). The age of technoscience. In Normann et al (pp. 18–30).Google Scholar
  42. Nordmann, A., Radder, H., & Schiemann, G. (Eds.). (2011). Science transformed? Debating claims of an epochal break. Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  43. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity Press/Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. OECD. (1981). The measurement of scientific and technical activities. Paris 1981. Fourth edition of the “Frascati Manual.”Google Scholar
  45. OECD. (2015). The measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities: Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  46. Rip, A. (2011). The future of research universities. Prometheus, 29, 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roll-Hansen, N. (2005). The Lysenko effect: Undermining the autonomy of science. Endeavour, 29(December 2005), 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Roll-Hansen, N. (2009). Eugenics and the science of genetics. In A. Bashford & P. Levine (Eds.), Handbook of the history of eugenics (pp. 80–97). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Roll-Hansen, N. (2015). On the philosophical roots of today’s science policy: Any lessons from the ‘Lysenko affair’? Studies in East European Thought, 67, 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rowland, H. (1883). A plea for pure science. Science, 2, 242–250.Google Scholar
  51. Rudner, R. (1953). The scientist Qua scientist makes value judgements. Philosophy of Science, 20, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schiemann, G. (2011). We are not witnesses to a new scientific revolution. In Nordmann et al. 2011 (pp. 31–42).Google Scholar
  53. Seward, A. C. (Ed.). (1917). Science and the nation. Essays by Cambridge graduates with an introduction by the Right Hon. Lord Moulton, K.C.B., F.R.S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant. Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  56. Von Wright, G. H. (1963). Norm and action. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IFIKKUniversity of OsloBlindern, OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations