Williamson !1

Brian Williamson

Matt Landrus

ENG-121

20 October 2014

On The Prioritization of Scientific Research for Societal Development

"What practical application does this have?" This is a question often asked of scientific

research, especially on the cutting edge. In most circumstances, what is really being asked is:

"How can this be used to make money?" David Kaplan, a theoretical particle physicist at Johns

Hopkins University, was faced with a similar question regarding the practical applications of the

work done at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), an experiment that is designed to test theories

involving the particles governing the fundamental forces of nature. His honest response was "It

could be nothingexcept for understanding everything" (Particle Fever). This exchange

demonstrates a fundamental difference in thoughts and values between those who see merit in

research for the sake of knowledge, and those who's interests are largely monetary. The former

would likely see money and politics as petty when seeking answers to deep questions of our

existence, but the reality is that money and politics do exist, and they are a necessary part of the

research process. As scientists, a convincing argument must be made on the necessity of science

in our complex society, even if it is merely a reminder of how much of that society is a product

of the scientific method.

Without the discoveries made through science, where would we be? If, for example, one

is struck ill, it is commonplace to seek a medical doctor. The doctor informs the individual that

they have a bacterial infection and prescribes antibiotics to remedy this. The antibiotics are

Williamson !2

taken, which in turn kills the bacteria and relieves the individual of their ailment. This treatment

relies on the discovery and identification of bacteria, the discovered association of that bacteria

with the ailment, and the discovery of compounds that are capable of destroying the bacteria.

This is of course a gross simplification of the knowledge gathered over many years, and through

many people, to make this treatment possible. Nonetheless, it was scientific methodology that

allowed these discoveries to be made. There is little dispute as to the usefulness and practicality

of such research in the medical field, as it is easy to see how it can benefit human health. A less

obvious example is necessary.

Rather than a bacterial infection, let the ailment instead be a fractured bone. The

individual is taken to a hospital where X-ray imaging is performed in order to determine the

severity and location of the fracture, so as to provide the most appropriate treatment. Stopping

here even, it is necessary that an X-ray imaging machine was developed to do this. In order for

that to occur, X-radiation will have to have been discovered. This discovery was made by

physicist Wilhelm Rntgen in 1895. He was not looking for a medical solution to fractured

bones, he was instead investigating cathode rays in discharge tubes. It was in no way obvious to

him, or to anyone, the utility and practicality of the discoveries made from his work. On top of

that, work done on the same sort of discharge tubes, known as Crookes tubes, led to such

inventions as the fluorescent light bulb and the cathode ray tube (CRT) that was used in the first

televisions. The work of physicist William Crookes made these groundbreaking discoveries

possible, which in turn made more groundbreaking discoveries possible. A common theme that is

seen amongst many of the great discoveries in science is that the research is rarely done for the

practical applications that come of it, because the practical applications are often not known prior

Williamson !3

to doing the research. Additionally, potentially insignificant discoveries can lead to further

discoveries, which lead to yet further discoveries, and so forth. We can go beyond simply solving

preexisting problems and limiting ourselves to applications we think possible; we can bring

novel ideas into fruition.

The current system of scientific funding in the US and Europe is generally considered to

be in a bad state. Researches must obtain funding through grants distributed by various

government agencies and private foundations. This is done by means of a reasonably competitive

application process. With limited funding available, and limited grant availability, a researcher's

chances of being successfully funded are diminished. This poses a problem in that researchers

must spend more time seeking funding, and more time jumping through bureaucratic hoops to do

so. A 2011 article for the periodical Scientific American states, "The process has become a major

time sink. In 2007 a US government study found that university faculty members spend about 40

percent of their research time navigating the bureaucratic labyrinth, and the situation is no better

in Europe" ("Dr. No Money"). There are far better ways that researchers could be spending their

time, namely, performing research.

A further issue with the system is in how grant winners are decided. Rather than primarily

looking at the quality of the researchers, and the potential of the research, it is generally the

safest investments that are chosen. This is a problem for scientific research because, as stated

previously, many breakthroughs are in research where its potential applicability is not initially

apparent. This would therefore make them risky investments. Science writers Brenda and K. Lee

Lerner state that "there is a loss of scientific diversity as proposals that have predicable outcomes

are viewed as less risky investments of precious capital by grant evaluation committees." They

Williamson !4

go on to say that this safe approach drives research "away from the types of risky research that

are the likeliest path to more spectacular scientific insights and advances." When it comes to

subjects such as cancer research, major breakthroughs are needed to carry things forward. In a

system that discourages that, the safe approach may not be the best, or even the safest,

distribution of funds. Science is certainly not an area to be playing it safe.

Another issue seen in the funding system is that of research funded by private interest

groups. Often times, results can be eschewed to work in the favor of the funding party. The

issues with this are so apparent that they hardly need mention. It is simply no longer science, and

contradicts the very purpose and nature of scientific research. This is often seen in the

pharmaceutical and health research industries. As an example, medical researcher Maira Bes-

Rastrollo and her associates at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain conducted a

systematic review of systematic reviews linking weight gain and sugar-sweetened beverages

(SSBs). They found that of the seventeen reviews in question, six of them had potential financial

conflicts of interest. Of the eleven reviews having no conflicts, 83.3% of them found a positive

correlation between weight gain and SSBs. Of the six reviews with conflicts, the same

percentage found no known correlation due to insufficient scientific evidence. These sorts of

manipulated topics and results only lead to further public confusion. The credibility of legitimate

research may then be questioned, and individuals become skeptical of the wrong sorts of things.

When particular research is manipulated to serve a profit interest, it creates a bad image of

scientific research as a whole. For the uninformed individual, the difference between such "bad

research" and legitimate research may not be so apparent.

Williamson !5

The root of many of these issues is based in the way that science is viewed by many

individuals. Particularly in America, science in pop culture is often eschewed or "dumbed-down"

in the name of entertainment value. This "anti-intellectualism" culture has long been developing,

and can be seen in many different contexts. The largest area in which this affects scientific

workings is in politics. A simple part of this issue lies in the fact that there are a staggeringly low

number of individuals with scientific backgrounds in political positions. Mathematician John

Paulos writes for the New York Times that amongst the 435 members of the US House of

Representatives, there is one physicist, one chemist, one microbiologist, and six engineers. He

compares that to China, wherein eight of its nine most important government officials have some

sort of scientific background. While the number of government officials with scientific

backgrounds may be on the upper end for China, it is more indicative of the numbers for many

countries, especially when compared to the US.

The distinct lack of elected officials with scientific backgrounds can really be brought

back to the way the American public views science. It is, after all, the public that does the

electing. One part of the issue is the disconnect between scientists and the general public. For

most, they simply do not care to understand the complexities of any of the many sub-fields of the

many scientific disciplines being practiced. This disconnect is seen on the scientific side as well,

as most scientists are not interested in packaging their information in a suitable, socially sensitive

manner. The issue then becomes that if the facts and data offend or contradict cultural and

religious beliefs, then the socially sensitive packaging often contradicts or distorts the facts. This

packaging is often done by politicians, which more often than not leads to conjured up

controversies, such as climate change, which are further sensationalized by the media. To

Williamson !6

relevantly quote science fiction writer and professor of biochemistry Isaac Asimov: "There is a

cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-

intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life,

nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your

knowledge'" (19). The reality is that, for science, anything less than cold, hard, empirical data is

not enough.

A particularly apparent underlying issue can be seen in the school system. Most

individuals who have been in the secondary school system are familiar with the typically

associated social system. Generally the individuals with a better social standing are those who

are better aligned with popular culture, whether that is through dress, media, or any of its facets.

Individuals pursuing athletic endeavors are often perceived as more popular than those pursuing

intellectual endeavors, as per the "jock" and "geek/nerd" cliques. Beyond that, even the

educational institutes themselves are often better funding their athletic systems than their

academic systems. A 2013 study by educational researcher Donna Desrochers found that

"athletic departments spend far more per athlete than institutions spend to educate the average

studenttypically three to six times as much." While this educational and sociocultural artifact

is an issue, it is one that is better explored elsewhere. It is a related but distinct issue that

deserves mention, but has been well-explored, and easily merits an entire paper in and of itself.

The solutions to these issues begin in educating the public on the importance of science

in society. At times it is simply necessary to remind one how much of their modern life is due to

past scientific endeavors. Many individuals fail to see the usefulness of something that they do

not understand, but it must be made apparent that one's lack of understanding within a particular

Williamson !7

subject does not exclude its potential applicability. After all, how many iPhone owners truly

understand the technology they are using to simply send a message? A better appreciation of

science will come from a better understanding of what has come of it. Many do not realize that a

number of things or ideas that are common sense or commonplace today are only so by means of

the work done by individuals in developing said thing or idea. It is often taken for granted that

electromagnetic information can be propagated through the air at the speed of light, and this is

made possible by the fruits of the scientific method.

Politically, a good first step would be to see more elected officials with scientific

backgrounds. Though, this really does stem from educating the public, in order to make them

more informed voters. The lack of scientifically familiar legislators will only damage the publics

views on the importance of scientific research in our society. A more scientifically informed

public will inherently elect more scientifically informed politicians. Regarding the political issue

of climate change, writer and astrophysicist Adam Frank writes:

The basic scientific case that the planet's climate is changing due to human

activity has been settled for at least 25 years. What's more, policymakers have

known about the dangers of climate change going back to the 1960s. But, as we

are painfully aware, not only has nothing been done, but opposition is so

prevalent that we can't even get to debating the real issue.

If the public were to be made more aware of the realities of these issues, they would not be

issues at all. It is necessary that informed voters are able to fact check politicians on their

information. After all, we are only aware of climate change because of science.

Williamson !8

Stemming from potential political solutions, a reform of the research funding system is

necessary. This can first be done by a deliberate allocation of more funds towards innovative and

potentially groundbreaking research versus safe, incremental research with predicable results.

While science is an incredibly effective tool of verification, it can be an even more effective tool

of discovery. The time consuming bureaucratic process is also in need of simplification. It is

unacceptable that researchers should need to spend so much of their valuable time navigating the

grant funding system, as it is wasting money in itself. If the organizations distributing grants

wish to get the most out of their money, it is in their best interest for the application process to be

smooth and concise. Before considering solutions involving increased funding, the funds

currently available are in need of better management and distribution. Additionally, as far as

manipulated research funded by private interest groups is concerned, harsher penalties should be

seen for labs violating this scientific integrity. At the very least, this research should be labeled

accordingly, carefully checked, and possibly taken with a grain of salt. Scientific integrity is to

be taken seriously by scientists if science is to be taken seriously by the public.

Increased government funding may also be necessary to create a more stable system of

supply and demand within the research sector. This proves difficult, as government funds can be

tight. A better way of looking at it may be to think more carefully when considering science and

research for budget cuts. Medical reporter Liz Szabo states that the purchasing power of the the

government budget for the National Institute of Health (NIH) has fallen 25% over the course of

the last decade. In addition, she writes that every dollar invested in the NIH returns two dollars

in goods and services to the economy within a year. This serves as a basic example just from the

health sector as to the value of research in the economy, and the necessity of a better grant

Williamson !9

funding model. While it may seem an easy economically extra area to siphon money from, the

consequences may be completely unknown. It is difficult to predict what sorts of potentially

beneficial results can be affected or absent due to a lack of funding, and the affected research

could likely be blamed on inadequacies of the ill funded researchers. This is why it is important

to consider the way in which scientific breakthroughs produce knowledge that allows for further

scientific breakthroughs. Careful considerations must be made in seeing the long term beneficial

effects that a well funded scientific research system can produce.

As can be seen, scientific research proves to be an indispensable tool of innovation. It is

something to be cherished and preserved. In a political system with an obvious lack of scientific

literacy, voters and policy makers must be reminded of its important place in our society. It

represents the best of our unique skills of analysis, memory, and pattern recognition that separate

us from the rest of the animal kingdom. While finding the money to properly fund scientific

research is difficult, and solutions are easier said than done, the funds can be found, and the

solutions implemented with the right motivation and intentions. Science has successfully faced

much larger problems than funding issues. If we wish to continue improving the amazing

technological society we are a part of, we must not neglect the tool that has created it. This tool

that has given us the power to see the workings of the human brain, to understand the beginnings

of our universe, and to visit worlds beyond our own. Given the proper resources, science will

carry us confidently into a universe of unknowns, where an individuals wildest thoughts and

dreams mark just the beginning of our capabilities as humans. Novelty awaits us, and science is

our vessel.

Williamson !10

Works Cited

Asimov, Isaac. "A Cult of Ignorance." Newsweek 21 Jan. 1980: 19. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

Bes-Rastrollo, Maira, et al. "Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the

association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: A systematic review of

systematic reviews." PLoS Medicine 10.12 (2013): e1001578. Web. 27 Nov. 2014.

Desrochers, Donna M. "Academic Spending Versus Athletic Spending: Who Wins?." Delta Cost

Project. American Institutes for Research, Jan. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.

"Dr No. Money." Scientific American. Nature Publishing Group, 19 Apr. 2011. Web. 22 Oct.

2014.

Frank, Adam. "A Problem Like No Other: Science And Politics." NPR. NPR, 10 June 2014. Web.

01 Dec. 2014.

Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth, and K. Lee Lerner. "Science Philosophy and Practice: Research

Funding and the Grant System." Scientific Thought In Context. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale,

Cengage Learning, 2008. 972-76. In Context Ser. Gale Virtual Reference Library.

Web. 29 Sept. 2014.

Particle Fever. Dir. Mark Levinson. Perf. David Kaplan. BOND360, 2014. Web. 19 Oct. 2014

Paulos, John Allen. "Why Don't Americans Elect Scientists?." The New York Times. The New

York Times Company, 13 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

Szabo, Liz. "NIH Director: Budget Cuts Put U.S. Science at Risk." USA Today. Gannett, 23 Apr.

2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2014.